Goot v. Pack

Appellate Division of the Supreme Court of New York

Goot v. Pack

198 A.D.2d 475, 604 N.Y.S.2d 211, 1993 N.Y. App. Div. LEXIS 11113

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

DecidedNovember 29, 1993

StatusPublished

Cited by1 cases

This text of 198 A.D.2d 475 (Goot v. Pack) 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

Goot v. Pack, 198 A.D.2d 475, 604 N.Y.S.2d 211, 1993 N.Y. App. Div. LEXIS 11113 (N.Y. Ct. App. 1993).

Pincite

Opinion

—In an action to recover damages for personal injuries, the plaintiff appeals, as limited by her brief, from so much of an order of the Supreme Court, Suffolk County (Brown, J.), dated June 21, 1991, as granted the defendant’s motion for summary judgment dismissing the complaint on the ground of lack of personal jurisdiction.

Ordered that the order is affirmed insofar as appealed from, with costs.

Since the defendant provided a correct address at the time of the accident and informed the Department of Motor Vehicles of her change in address, and since the plaintiff has failed to show that the defendant engaged in any conduct which was calculated to prevent the plaintiff from ascertaining her new address, we find no basis to estop the defendant from challenging service at her former address (see, Feinstein v Bergner, 48 NY2d 234; Cuomo v Cuomo, 144 AD2d 331; cf., Hill v Jones, [476]*476113 AD2d 874; Kramer v Ryder Truck Rental, 112 AD2d 194). Mangano, P. J., Rosenblatt, Lawrence and Joy, JJ., concur.

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

—In an action to recover damages for personal injuries, the plaintiff appeals, as limited by her brief, from so much of an order of the Supreme Court, Suffolk County (Brown, J.), dated June 21, 1991, as granted the defendant’s motion for summary judgment dismissing the complaint on the ground of lack of personal jurisdiction.

Ordered that the order is affirmed insofar as appealed from, with costs.

Since the defendant provided a correct address at the time of the accident and informed the Department of Motor Vehicles of her change in address, and since the plaintiff has failed to show that the defendant engaged in any conduct which was calculated to prevent the plaintiff from ascertaining her new address, we find no basis to estop the defendant from challenging service at her former address (see, Feinstein v Bergner, 48 NY2d 234; Cuomo v Cuomo, 144 AD2d 331; cf., Hill v Jones, [476]*476113 AD2d 874; Kramer v Ryder Truck Rental, 112 AD2d 194). Mangano, P. J., Rosenblatt, Lawrence and Joy, JJ., concur.

Cite This Page — Counsel Stack

Bluebook (online)

198 A.D.2d 475, 604 N.Y.S.2d 211, 1993 N.Y. App. Div. LEXIS 11113, Counsel Stack Legal Research, https://law.counselstack.com/opinion/goot-v-pack-nyappdiv-1993.

Opinion

Related

Cite This Page — Counsel Stack