Jadav v. New York City Transit Authority

Appellate Division of the Supreme Court of New York

Jadav v. New York City Transit Authority

70 A.D.2d 853, 418 N.Y.S.2d 37, 1979 N.Y. App. Div. LEXIS 12420

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

DecidedJune 28, 1979

StatusPublished

Cited by2 cases

This text of 70 A.D.2d 853 (Jadav v. New York City Transit Authority) 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

Jadav v. New York City Transit Authority, 70 A.D.2d 853, 418 N.Y.S.2d 37, 1979 N.Y. App. Div. LEXIS 12420 (N.Y. Ct. App. 1979).

Pincite

Opinion

— Judgment, Supreme Court, New York County, entered June 15, 1977, granting, inter alia, defendant Transit Authority’s cross motion to dismiss, unanimously affirmed, without costs or disbursements. Special Term was correct in holding that service by certified mail of the notice of petition and petition in this article 78 proceeding was insufficient to confer jurisdiction over the Transit Authority. (Matter of Harlem Riv. Consumers Coop, v State Tax Comm., 44 AD2d 738, afid 37 NY2d 877; see CPLR 403, subd [c].) Nor is there merit to petitioner’s argument that the Transit Authority is estopped from raising the jurisdictional defect. Petitioner received the Transit Authority’s motion papers raising the issue of the defective service within four months of his dismissal. The period of limitation provided for in CPLR 217 runs from the date of dismissal. (See Matter of Fryer v Broome County Bd. of Supervisors, 37 AD2d 755.) Special Term, however, also found that the petition failed to state a cause of action because petitioner’s services were terminated while he was a probationary employee. As the Transit Authority commendably concedes in its brief, there was an insufficient basis in the record to justify such a conclusion. Finally, we note that petitioner has chosen not to pursue his appeal against the City of New York. Concur — Murphy, P. J., Sullivan, Markewich, Lupiano and Silverman, JJ.

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

— Judgment, Supreme Court, New York County, entered June 15, 1977, granting, inter alia, defendant Transit Authority’s cross motion to dismiss, unanimously affirmed, without costs or disbursements. Special Term was correct in holding that service by certified mail of the notice of petition and petition in this article 78 proceeding was insufficient to confer jurisdiction over the Transit Authority. (Matter of Harlem Riv. Consumers Coop, v State Tax Comm., 44 AD2d 738, afid 37 NY2d 877; see CPLR 403, subd [c].) Nor is there merit to petitioner’s argument that the Transit Authority is estopped from raising the jurisdictional defect. Petitioner received the Transit Authority’s motion papers raising the issue of the defective service within four months of his dismissal. The period of limitation provided for in CPLR 217 runs from the date of dismissal. (See Matter of Fryer v Broome County Bd. of Supervisors, 37 AD2d 755.) Special Term, however, also found that the petition failed to state a cause of action because petitioner’s services were terminated while he was a probationary employee. As the Transit Authority commendably concedes in its brief, there was an insufficient basis in the record to justify such a conclusion. Finally, we note that petitioner has chosen not to pursue his appeal against the City of New York. Concur — Murphy, P. J., Sullivan, Markewich, Lupiano and Silverman, JJ.

Cite This Page — Counsel Stack

Bluebook (online)

70 A.D.2d 853, 418 N.Y.S.2d 37, 1979 N.Y. App. Div. LEXIS 12420, Counsel Stack Legal Research, https://law.counselstack.com/opinion/jadav-v-new-york-city-transit-authority-nyappdiv-1979.

Opinion

Related

Cite This Page — Counsel Stack