Hirsh v. Continental Stock Transfer & Trust Co.

Appellate Division of the Supreme Court of New York

Hirsh v. Continental Stock Transfer & Trust Co.

203 A.D.2d 102, 612 N.Y.S.2d 841

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

DecidedApril 12, 1994

StatusPublished

Cited by1 cases

This text of 203 A.D.2d 102 (Hirsh v. Continental Stock Transfer & Trust Co.) 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

Hirsh v. Continental Stock Transfer & Trust Co., 203 A.D.2d 102, 612 N.Y.S.2d 841 (N.Y. Ct. App. 1994).

Pincite

Opinion

—Order, Supreme Court, New York County (Walter Schackman, J.), entered February 11, 1993, which denied the appealing defendants’ motion for an order clarifying an order of the same court and Justice, entered September 28, 1992, to the extent that defendants’ cross motion to dismiss the complaint for want of jurisdiction in personam was denied, unanimously affirmed, with costs.

The initial motion asserting lack of proper service under CPLR 311 was supported only by an affirmation of counsel (see, Hauff v CLXXXII Via Magna Corp., 118 AD2d 485, 486). Counsel’s recital of facts bearing upon service based upon his personal knowledge was improperly made for the first time in reply papers (see, Dannasch v Bifulco, 184 AD2d 415), and was insufficient to raise a question of fact as to proper service. Concur — Sullivan, J. P., Asch, Nardelli and Tom, JJ.

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

—Order, Supreme Court, New York County (Walter Schackman, J.), entered February 11, 1993, which denied the appealing defendants’ motion for an order clarifying an order of the same court and Justice, entered September 28, 1992, to the extent that defendants’ cross motion to dismiss the complaint for want of jurisdiction in personam was denied, unanimously affirmed, with costs.

The initial motion asserting lack of proper service under CPLR 311 was supported only by an affirmation of counsel (see, Hauff v CLXXXII Via Magna Corp., 118 AD2d 485, 486). Counsel’s recital of facts bearing upon service based upon his personal knowledge was improperly made for the first time in reply papers (see, Dannasch v Bifulco, 184 AD2d 415), and was insufficient to raise a question of fact as to proper service. Concur — Sullivan, J. P., Asch, Nardelli and Tom, JJ.

Cite This Page — Counsel Stack

Bluebook (online)

203 A.D.2d 102, 612 N.Y.S.2d 841, Counsel Stack Legal Research, https://law.counselstack.com/opinion/hirsh-v-continental-stock-transfer-trust-co-nyappdiv-1994.

Opinion

Related

Cite This Page — Counsel Stack