Home/Appellate Division of the Supreme Court of New York/Holtzman v. KTB Athletics SB TM

Holtzman v. KTB Athletics SB TM

113 A.D.3d 656, 978 N.Y.2d 689
CourtAppellate Division of the Supreme Court of the State of New York
DecidedJanuary 15, 2014
StatusPublished

This text of 113 A.D.3d 656 (Holtzman v. KTB Athletics SB TM) 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
Holtzman v. KTB Athletics SB TM, 113 A.D.3d 656, 978 N.Y.2d 689 (N.Y. Ct. App. 2014).

Opinion

Those branches of the defendant’s motion which were pursuant to CPLR 5015 (a) (4) to vacate an order dated October 4, 2012, entered upon its default in answering the complaint, and pursuant to CPLR 3211 (a) (8) to dismiss the complaint for lack of jurisdiction, should have been granted. The defendant demonstrated that it was not a jural entity amenable to suit and, in any event, that service of the complaint was defective (see Pearson v 1296 Pac. St. Assoc., Inc., 67 AD3d 659 [2009]; Sheldon v Kimberly-Clark Corp., 111 AD2d 912 [1985]; Flint Cr. Campground v Cator, 29 Misc 3d 1216[A], 2010 NY Slip Op 51851[U] [Yates County Ct 2010]; CPLR 308).

The plaintiffs’ remaining contentions are without merit. Skelos, J.P., Dillon, Dickerson and Austin, JJ., concur.

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

Related

Pearson v. 1296 Pacific Street Associates, Inc.
67 A.D.3d 659 (Appellate Division of the Supreme Court of New York, 2009)
Sheldon v. Kimberly-Clark Corp.
111 A.D.2d 912 (Appellate Division of the Supreme Court of New York, 1985)

Cite This Page — Counsel Stack

Bluebook (online)
113 A.D.3d 656, 978 N.Y.2d 689, Counsel Stack Legal Research, https://law.counselstack.com/opinion/holtzman-v-ktb-athletics-sb-tm-nyappdiv-2014.