Gajdos v. Haughton Elevator

Appellate Division of the Supreme Court of New York

Gajdos v. Haughton Elevator

131 A.D.2d 428, 516 N.Y.S.2d 80, 1987 N.Y. App. Div. LEXIS 47891

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

DecidedJune 1, 1987

StatusPublished

Cited by6 cases

This text of 131 A.D.2d 428 (Gajdos v. Haughton Elevator) 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

Gajdos v. Haughton Elevator, 131 A.D.2d 428, 516 N.Y.S.2d 80, 1987 N.Y. App. Div. LEXIS 47891 (N.Y. Ct. App. 1987).

Pincite

Opinion

In a negligence action to recover damages for personal injuries, the defendant Schindler Elevator Corporation appeals from an order of the Supreme Court, Kings County (Shaw, J.), dated March 3, 1986, which denied its motion to dismiss the complaint for lack of personal jurisdiction.

Ordered that the order is affirmed, with costs, and the caption is amended to substitute "Schindler Elevator Corporation” in place of "Haughton Elevator, a Division of Reliance Electric Company”.

The summons, which denominated the defendant as "Haughton Elevator, division of Reliance Electric Company”, was served upon Schindler Haughton Elevator Corporation, now Schindler Elevator Corporation, at its principal place of business. We find, under the circumstances herein, that service was effected upon the defendant under a misnomer. As the defendant was fairly apprised that it was the intended party defendant (see, Stuyvesant v Weil, 167 NY 421, 425-426; [429]*429Connor v Fish, 91 AD2d 744; Luce v Pierce Muffler Shops, 51 Misc 2d 256, affd 28 AD2d 826), jurisdiction was obtained over it and the motion to dismiss was properly denied. Mangano, J. P., Thompson, Kunzeman and Sullivan, JJ., concur.

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

In a negligence action to recover damages for personal injuries, the defendant Schindler Elevator Corporation appeals from an order of the Supreme Court, Kings County (Shaw, J.), dated March 3, 1986, which denied its motion to dismiss the complaint for lack of personal jurisdiction.

Ordered that the order is affirmed, with costs, and the caption is amended to substitute "Schindler Elevator Corporation” in place of "Haughton Elevator, a Division of Reliance Electric Company”.

The summons, which denominated the defendant as "Haughton Elevator, division of Reliance Electric Company”, was served upon Schindler Haughton Elevator Corporation, now Schindler Elevator Corporation, at its principal place of business. We find, under the circumstances herein, that service was effected upon the defendant under a misnomer. As the defendant was fairly apprised that it was the intended party defendant (see, Stuyvesant v Weil, 167 NY 421, 425-426; [429]*429Connor v Fish, 91 AD2d 744; Luce v Pierce Muffler Shops, 51 Misc 2d 256, affd 28 AD2d 826), jurisdiction was obtained over it and the motion to dismiss was properly denied. Mangano, J. P., Thompson, Kunzeman and Sullivan, JJ., concur.

Cite This Page — Counsel Stack

Bluebook (online)

131 A.D.2d 428, 516 N.Y.S.2d 80, 1987 N.Y. App. Div. LEXIS 47891, Counsel Stack Legal Research, https://law.counselstack.com/opinion/gajdos-v-haughton-elevator-nyappdiv-1987.

Opinion

Related

Cite This Page — Counsel Stack