Goodwin v. Hoppenfeld

Appellate Division of the Supreme Court of New York

Goodwin v. Hoppenfeld

88 A.D.2d 925, 451 N.Y.S.2d 168, 1982 N.Y. App. Div. LEXIS 17266

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

DecidedJune 7, 1982

StatusPublished

This text of 88 A.D.2d 925 (Goodwin v. Hoppenfeld) 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

Goodwin v. Hoppenfeld, 88 A.D.2d 925, 451 N.Y.S.2d 168, 1982 N.Y. App. Div. LEXIS 17266 (N.Y. Ct. App. 1982).

Pincite

Opinion

— In a medical malpractice action, plaintiff appeals from (1) an order of the Supreme Court, Kings County (Pino, J.), dated May 28, 1981 which, after a hearing, inter alia, granted the defendant’s motion for summary judgment dismissing the complaint on the ground of lack of personal jurisdiction and (2) the judgment entered thereon on June 3, 1981. Appeal from the order, dismissed (see Matter of Aho, 39 NY2d 241, 248). Judgment affirmed. Defendant is awarded one bill of costs. Since the credible evidence established that the “mailing” of process to the defendant in purported compliance with CPLR 308 (subd 4) was not made, as required, to his “last known residence”, the complaint was properly dismissed (see Pober v BoulevardHosp., 72 AD2d 600; see, also, Sparacino v Winner, 82 AD2d 753). Damiani, J. P., Mangano, Gulotta and Niehoff, JJ., concur.

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

— In a medical malpractice action, plaintiff appeals from (1) an order of the Supreme Court, Kings County (Pino, J.), dated May 28, 1981 which, after a hearing, inter alia, granted the defendant’s motion for summary judgment dismissing the complaint on the ground of lack of personal jurisdiction and (2) the judgment entered thereon on June 3, 1981. Appeal from the order, dismissed (see Matter of Aho, 39 NY2d 241, 248). Judgment affirmed. Defendant is awarded one bill of costs. Since the credible evidence established that the “mailing” of process to the defendant in purported compliance with CPLR 308 (subd 4) was not made, as required, to his “last known residence”, the complaint was properly dismissed (see Pober v BoulevardHosp., 72 AD2d 600; see, also, Sparacino v Winner, 82 AD2d 753). Damiani, J. P., Mangano, Gulotta and Niehoff, JJ., concur.

Cite This Page — Counsel Stack

Bluebook (online)

88 A.D.2d 925, 451 N.Y.S.2d 168, 1982 N.Y. App. Div. LEXIS 17266, Counsel Stack Legal Research, https://law.counselstack.com/opinion/goodwin-v-hoppenfeld-nyappdiv-1982.

Opinion

Related

Cite This Page — Counsel Stack