Health-Loom Corp. v. Sixty-Six Crosby Associates

Appellate Division of the Supreme Court of New York

Health-Loom Corp. v. Sixty-Six Crosby Associates

260 A.D.2d 158, 685 N.Y.S.2d 616, 1999 N.Y. App. Div. LEXIS 3222

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

DecidedApril 1, 1999

StatusPublished

This text of 260 A.D.2d 158 (Health-Loom Corp. v. Sixty-Six Crosby Associates) 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

Health-Loom Corp. v. Sixty-Six Crosby Associates, 260 A.D.2d 158, 685 N.Y.S.2d 616, 1999 N.Y. App. Div. LEXIS 3222 (N.Y. Ct. App. 1999).

Pincite

Opinion

—Order, Supreme Court, New York County (Carol Huff, J.), entered on or about May 12,1998, denying defendant’s motion for summary judgment upon its affirmative defense of lack of personal jurisdiction, and granting plaintiffs’ cross motion to strike the answer to the extent of striking the personal jurisdiction defense, unanimously affirmed, without costs.

A motion by defendant to dismiss this action against it for lack of personal jurisdiction having been previously denied and no appeal having been taken from the denial, defendant was precluded from reasserting the jurisdictional claim as an affirmative defense. Accordingly, the grant of plaintiff’s motion to strike the subject affirmative defense was entirely proper. Concur — Ellerin, P. J., Tom, Wallach and Saxe, JJ.

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

—Order, Supreme Court, New York County (Carol Huff, J.), entered on or about May 12,1998, denying defendant’s motion for summary judgment upon its affirmative defense of lack of personal jurisdiction, and granting plaintiffs’ cross motion to strike the answer to the extent of striking the personal jurisdiction defense, unanimously affirmed, without costs.

A motion by defendant to dismiss this action against it for lack of personal jurisdiction having been previously denied and no appeal having been taken from the denial, defendant was precluded from reasserting the jurisdictional claim as an affirmative defense. Accordingly, the grant of plaintiff’s motion to strike the subject affirmative defense was entirely proper. Concur — Ellerin, P. J., Tom, Wallach and Saxe, JJ.

Cite This Page — Counsel Stack

Bluebook (online)

260 A.D.2d 158, 685 N.Y.S.2d 616, 1999 N.Y. App. Div. LEXIS 3222, Counsel Stack Legal Research, https://law.counselstack.com/opinion/health-loom-corp-v-sixty-six-crosby-associates-nyappdiv-1999.