Jerome v. J.J. Maloney Co.

Appellate Division of the Supreme Court of New York

Jerome v. J.J. Maloney Co.

293 A.D.2d 449, 739 N.Y.S.2d 649, 2002 N.Y. App. Div. LEXIS 3344

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

DecidedApril 1, 2002

StatusPublished

This text of 293 A.D.2d 449 (Jerome v. J.J. Maloney 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

Jerome v. J.J. Maloney Co., 293 A.D.2d 449, 739 N.Y.S.2d 649, 2002 N.Y. App. Div. LEXIS 3344 (N.Y. Ct. App. 2002).

Pincite

Opinion

In an action to recover damages for personal injuries, the plaintiff appeals from an order of the Supreme Court, Queens County (LaTorella, J.), dated November 6, 2000, which granted the motion of the defendants J.J. Maloney Co., Inc., doing business as J.J. Maloney Co. and John M. Nolan pursuant to CPLR 3211 (a) (8) to dismiss the complaint insofar as asserted against them for lack of in personam jurisdiction.

Ordered that the order is reversed, on the law, with costs, the motion is denied, and the complaint is reinstated insofar as asserted against the respondents.

The respondents’ preanswer motion failed to comply with the timeliness requirement set forth in CPLR 3211 (e), and they never sought leave to serve a late answer. Therefore, the motion should have been denied. Altman, J.P., Krausman, McGinity and Cozier, JJ., concur.

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

In an action to recover damages for personal injuries, the plaintiff appeals from an order of the Supreme Court, Queens County (LaTorella, J.), dated November 6, 2000, which granted the motion of the defendants J.J. Maloney Co., Inc., doing business as J.J. Maloney Co. and John M. Nolan pursuant to CPLR 3211 (a) (8) to dismiss the complaint insofar as asserted against them for lack of in personam jurisdiction.

Ordered that the order is reversed, on the law, with costs, the motion is denied, and the complaint is reinstated insofar as asserted against the respondents.

The respondents’ preanswer motion failed to comply with the timeliness requirement set forth in CPLR 3211 (e), and they never sought leave to serve a late answer. Therefore, the motion should have been denied. Altman, J.P., Krausman, McGinity and Cozier, JJ., concur.

Cite This Page — Counsel Stack

Bluebook (online)

293 A.D.2d 449, 739 N.Y.S.2d 649, 2002 N.Y. App. Div. LEXIS 3344, Counsel Stack Legal Research, https://law.counselstack.com/opinion/jerome-v-jj-maloney-co-nyappdiv-2002.