In re the Arbitration between Pickman Brokerage & Benova

Appellate Division of the Supreme Court of New York

In re the Arbitration between Pickman Brokerage & Benova

184 A.D.2d 226, 584 N.Y.S.2d 807, 1992 N.Y. App. Div. LEXIS 7709

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

DecidedJune 4, 1992

StatusPublished

Cited by3 cases

This text of 184 A.D.2d 226 (In re the Arbitration between Pickman Brokerage & Benova) 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

In re the Arbitration between Pickman Brokerage & Benova, 184 A.D.2d 226, 584 N.Y.S.2d 807, 1992 N.Y. App. Div. LEXIS 7709 (N.Y. Ct. App. 1992).

Pincite

Opinion

Judgment, Supreme Court, New York County (Burton S. Sherman, J.), entered March 18, 1991, which, in a proceeding to vacate an arbitration award, granted respondent’s cross motion to dismiss the petition for lack of jurisdiction, unanimously affirmed, with costs.

We agree with the IAS court that the individual who allegedly accepted service on respondent’s behalf, a building porter, not in respondent’s employ, was neither a person of suitable age and discretion within the meaning of CPLR 308 (2) (1 Weinstein-Korn-Miller, NY Civ Prac ¶ 308.13), nor authorized to receive service (General Associations Law § 13; cf., Matter of Franz v Board of Educ., 112 AD2d 934, 935, lv denied 67 NY2d 603; 2 Weinstein-Korn-Miller, op. cit., ¶ 320.07). Moreover, the process was not thereafter mailed in accordance with CPLR 308 (2).

Petitioners, having failed to meet their burden of proof by a [227]*227preponderance of evidence that personal jurisdiction was obtained over respondent president, the proceeding was properly dismissed (Lexington Ins. Co. v Schuyler Bumpers, 125 AD2d 554). Concur — Murphy, P. J., Carro, Wallach and Smith, JJ. [See, 149 Misc 2d 879.]

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

Judgment, Supreme Court, New York County (Burton S. Sherman, J.), entered March 18, 1991, which, in a proceeding to vacate an arbitration award, granted respondent’s cross motion to dismiss the petition for lack of jurisdiction, unanimously affirmed, with costs.

We agree with the IAS court that the individual who allegedly accepted service on respondent’s behalf, a building porter, not in respondent’s employ, was neither a person of suitable age and discretion within the meaning of CPLR 308 (2) (1 Weinstein-Korn-Miller, NY Civ Prac ¶ 308.13), nor authorized to receive service (General Associations Law § 13; cf., Matter of Franz v Board of Educ., 112 AD2d 934, 935, lv denied 67 NY2d 603; 2 Weinstein-Korn-Miller, op. cit., ¶ 320.07). Moreover, the process was not thereafter mailed in accordance with CPLR 308 (2).

Petitioners, having failed to meet their burden of proof by a [227]*227preponderance of evidence that personal jurisdiction was obtained over respondent president, the proceeding was properly dismissed (Lexington Ins. Co. v Schuyler Bumpers, 125 AD2d 554). Concur — Murphy, P. J., Carro, Wallach and Smith, JJ. [See, 149 Misc 2d 879.]

Cite This Page — Counsel Stack

Bluebook (online)

184 A.D.2d 226, 584 N.Y.S.2d 807, 1992 N.Y. App. Div. LEXIS 7709, Counsel Stack Legal Research, https://law.counselstack.com/opinion/in-re-the-arbitration-between-pickman-brokerage-benova-nyappdiv-1992.

Opinion

Related

Cite This Page — Counsel Stack