Haight v. Gates

Appellate Division of the Supreme Court of New York

Haight v. Gates

263 A.D. 1060, 34 N.Y.S.2d 306, 1942 N.Y. App. Div. LEXIS 8034

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

DecidedMarch 18, 1942

StatusPublished

This text of 263 A.D. 1060 (Haight v. Gates) 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

Haight v. Gates, 263 A.D. 1060, 34 N.Y.S.2d 306, 1942 N.Y. App. Div. LEXIS 8034 (N.Y. Ct. App. 1942).

Pincite

Opinion

Order reversed on the law, with ten dollars costs and disbursements, and motion denied, with ten dollars costs. Memorandum: We are of the opinion that the order directing substituted service of the summons and the affidavit upon which it was made meet the requirements of sections 230 and 231 of the Civil Practice Act. In that view, and upon consideration of the affidavits marked “ 1 ” and “ 2’’for identification, we are also of the opinion that the order appealed from should be reversed on the law and the motion denied. All concur. (The order grants a motion to vacate an order for substituted service.) Present — Crosby, P. J., Cunningham, Taylor, Dowling and Harris,-JJ.

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

Order reversed on the law, with ten dollars costs and disbursements, and motion denied, with ten dollars costs. Memorandum: We are of the opinion that the order directing substituted service of the summons and the affidavit upon which it was made meet the requirements of sections 230 and 231 of the Civil Practice Act. In that view, and upon consideration of the affidavits marked “ 1 ” and “ 2’’for identification, we are also of the opinion that the order appealed from should be reversed on the law and the motion denied. All concur. (The order grants a motion to vacate an order for substituted service.) Present — Crosby, P. J., Cunningham, Taylor, Dowling and Harris,-JJ.

Cite This Page — Counsel Stack

Bluebook (online)

263 A.D. 1060, 34 N.Y.S.2d 306, 1942 N.Y. App. Div. LEXIS 8034, Counsel Stack Legal Research, https://law.counselstack.com/opinion/haight-v-gates-nyappdiv-1942.