Headley v. Noto

Appellate Division of the Supreme Court of New York

Headley v. Noto

24 A.D.2d 493, 261 N.Y.S.2d 846, 1965 N.Y. App. Div. LEXIS 3884

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

DecidedJune 21, 1965

StatusPublished

Cited by6 cases

This text of 24 A.D.2d 493 (Headley v. Noto) 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

Headley v. Noto, 24 A.D.2d 493, 261 N.Y.S.2d 846, 1965 N.Y. App. Div. LEXIS 3884 (N.Y. Ct. App. 1965).

Pincite

Opinion

In an action seeking ejectment and damages, the defendant appeals from so much of an order of the Supreme Court, Kings County, entered February 17, 1965, as denied his motion, pursuant to CPLR 3211, to dismiss the complaint on the ground that, under CPLR 3217 (subd. [e]), there had been an adjudication on the merits against the plaintiffs in this action upon the cause of action alleged in the complaint, and upon the further ground that jurisdiction of the defendant had not been properly obtained. [See 45 Misc 2d 284.] Order, insofar as appealed from, affirmed, with $10 costs and disbursements, with leave to defendant to serve his answer within 10 days from the service of a copy of the order entered hereon, with notice of entry (New Edgewood Props. v. Sachsman, 22 Misc 2d 36). Beldock, P. J., Ughetta, Christ, Brennan and Hopkins, JJ., concur.

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

In an action seeking ejectment and damages, the defendant appeals from so much of an order of the Supreme Court, Kings County, entered February 17, 1965, as denied his motion, pursuant to CPLR 3211, to dismiss the complaint on the ground that, under CPLR 3217 (subd. [e]), there had been an adjudication on the merits against the plaintiffs in this action upon the cause of action alleged in the complaint, and upon the further ground that jurisdiction of the defendant had not been properly obtained. [See 45 Misc 2d 284.] Order, insofar as appealed from, affirmed, with $10 costs and disbursements, with leave to defendant to serve his answer within 10 days from the service of a copy of the order entered hereon, with notice of entry (New Edgewood Props. v. Sachsman, 22 Misc 2d 36). Beldock, P. J., Ughetta, Christ, Brennan and Hopkins, JJ., concur.

Cite This Page — Counsel Stack

Bluebook (online)

24 A.D.2d 493, 261 N.Y.S.2d 846, 1965 N.Y. App. Div. LEXIS 3884, Counsel Stack Legal Research, https://law.counselstack.com/opinion/headley-v-noto-nyappdiv-1965.

Opinion

Related

Cite This Page — Counsel Stack