Hall v. Bickweat

Appellate Division of the Supreme Court of New York

Hall v. Bickweat

184 A.D.2d 1026, 584 N.Y.S.2d 690, 1992 N.Y. App. Div. LEXIS 8259

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

DecidedJune 5, 1992

StatusPublished

This text of 184 A.D.2d 1026 (Hall v. Bickweat) 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

Hall v. Bickweat, 184 A.D.2d 1026, 584 N.Y.S.2d 690, 1992 N.Y. App. Div. LEXIS 8259 (N.Y. Ct. App. 1992).

Pincite

Opinion

Judgment unanimously affirmed without costs. Memorandum: Supreme Court properly dismissed the petition because petitioner did not effect personal service upon respondent. Service upon respondent’s secretary was not personal service upon respondent because he had not designated her as agent for service (see, CPLR 308 [3]), and because a copy of the petition was not mailed to respondent at his place of business (see, CPLR 308 [2]). Respondent is not estopped from denying personal service. Petitioner has stated no facts showing that he was misled by any actions or statements by respondent or his secretary into [1027]*1027believing that respondent’s secretary was respondent’s agent for service. (Appeal from Judgment of Supreme Court, Steuben County, Scudder, J. — Article 78.) Present — Callahan, J. P., Boomer, Balio, Lawton and Doerr, JJ.

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

Judgment unanimously affirmed without costs. Memorandum: Supreme Court properly dismissed the petition because petitioner did not effect personal service upon respondent. Service upon respondent’s secretary was not personal service upon respondent because he had not designated her as agent for service (see, CPLR 308 [3]), and because a copy of the petition was not mailed to respondent at his place of business (see, CPLR 308 [2]). Respondent is not estopped from denying personal service. Petitioner has stated no facts showing that he was misled by any actions or statements by respondent or his secretary into [1027]*1027believing that respondent’s secretary was respondent’s agent for service. (Appeal from Judgment of Supreme Court, Steuben County, Scudder, J. — Article 78.) Present — Callahan, J. P., Boomer, Balio, Lawton and Doerr, JJ.

Cite This Page — Counsel Stack

Bluebook (online)

184 A.D.2d 1026, 584 N.Y.S.2d 690, 1992 N.Y. App. Div. LEXIS 8259, Counsel Stack Legal Research, https://law.counselstack.com/opinion/hall-v-bickweat-nyappdiv-1992.