Francis v. Goord

Appellate Division of the Supreme Court of New York

Francis v. Goord

266 A.D.2d 845, 697 N.Y.S.2d 430, 1999 N.Y. App. Div. LEXIS 11901

CourtAppellate Division of the Supreme Court of the State of New York

DecidedNovember 12, 1999

StatusPublished

Cited by1 cases

This text of 266 A.D.2d 845 (Francis v. Goord) is published on Counsel Stack Legal Research, covering Appellate Division of the Supreme Court of the State of New York primary law. Counsel Stack provides free access to over 12 million legal documents including statutes, case law, regulations, and constitutions.

Bluebook

Francis v. Goord, 266 A.D.2d 845, 697 N.Y.S.2d 430, 1999 N.Y. App. Div. LEXIS 11901 (N.Y. Ct. App. 1999).

Pincite

Opinion

—Amended petition unanimously dismissed without costs. Memorandum: Respondents’ motion to dismiss the amended petition for lack of personal jurisdiction should have been granted. Petitioner served the amended petition by mail upon the Attorney General and the Oneida County Attorney, but served none of the respondents. “Absent a court order authorizing such service, petitioner did not obtain personal jurisdiction over respondents by serving the petition by mail upon the Attorney-General and the [Oneida] County Attorney” (Matter of Lowrance v Coughlin, 190 AD2d 915; see, Matter of Jarvis v Coughlin, 88 AD2d 1041; Matter of Jones v Coughlin, 87 AD2d 953). Thus, we dismiss the amended petition (see, CPLR 7804 [846]*846[g]; Schmitt v Perales, 187 AD2d 1041). (CPLR art 78 Proceeding Transferred by Order of Supreme Court, Oneida County, Parker, J.) Present — Green, J. P., Lawton, Hayes, Hurlbutt and Balio, JJ.

Free access — add to your briefcase to read the full text and ask questions with AI

—Amended petition unanimously dismissed without costs. Memorandum: Respondents’ motion to dismiss the amended petition for lack of personal jurisdiction should have been granted. Petitioner served the amended petition by mail upon the Attorney General and the Oneida County Attorney, but served none of the respondents. “Absent a court order authorizing such service, petitioner did not obtain personal jurisdiction over respondents by serving the petition by mail upon the Attorney-General and the [Oneida] County Attorney” (Matter of Lowrance v Coughlin, 190 AD2d 915; see, Matter of Jarvis v Coughlin, 88 AD2d 1041; Matter of Jones v Coughlin, 87 AD2d 953). Thus, we dismiss the amended petition (see, CPLR 7804 [846]*846[g]; Schmitt v Perales, 187 AD2d 1041). (CPLR art 78 Proceeding Transferred by Order of Supreme Court, Oneida County, Parker, J.) Present — Green, J. P., Lawton, Hayes, Hurlbutt and Balio, JJ.

Cite This Page — Counsel Stack

Bluebook (online)

266 A.D.2d 845, 697 N.Y.S.2d 430, 1999 N.Y. App. Div. LEXIS 11901, Counsel Stack Legal Research, https://law.counselstack.com/opinion/francis-v-goord-nyappdiv-1999.

Opinion

Related

Cite This Page — Counsel Stack