Jiminez v. City of New York

Appellate Division of the Supreme Court of New York

Jiminez v. City of New York

5 A.D.3d 182, 772 N.Y.S.2d 515, 2004 N.Y. App. Div. LEXIS 2348

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

DecidedMarch 9, 2004

StatusPublished

Cited by4 cases

This text of 5 A.D.3d 182 (Jiminez v. City of New York) 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

Jiminez v. City of New York, 5 A.D.3d 182, 772 N.Y.S.2d 515, 2004 N.Y. App. Div. LEXIS 2348 (N.Y. Ct. App. 2004).

Pincite

Opinion

[183]*183Order, Supreme Court, Bronx County (Betty Owen Stinson, J.), entered November 21, 2002, which, to the extent appealed from as limited by the briefs, denied plaintiff’s motion for a default judgment against the six individual defendants, unanimously affirmed, without costs.

No jurisdiction was obtained over the individually named correction officers, who concededly worked at Hikers Island, by means of substituted service at the Department of Correction headquarters in Manhattan (see Lorensen v Digman, 1998 WL 37593, 1998 US Dist LEXIS 861 [ND NY, Jan. 27, 1998]). There are no disputed facts that would require a traverse hearing. In the absence of jurisdiction, these individuals were relieved of having to offer a meritorious defense or reasonable excuse for failing to answer the complaint (European Am. Bank v Legum, 248 AD2d 206, 208 [1998]). Concur—Andrias, J.P., Saxe, Sullivan and Gonzalez, JJ.

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

[183]*183Order, Supreme Court, Bronx County (Betty Owen Stinson, J.), entered November 21, 2002, which, to the extent appealed from as limited by the briefs, denied plaintiff’s motion for a default judgment against the six individual defendants, unanimously affirmed, without costs.

No jurisdiction was obtained over the individually named correction officers, who concededly worked at Hikers Island, by means of substituted service at the Department of Correction headquarters in Manhattan (see Lorensen v Digman, 1998 WL 37593, 1998 US Dist LEXIS 861 [ND NY, Jan. 27, 1998]). There are no disputed facts that would require a traverse hearing. In the absence of jurisdiction, these individuals were relieved of having to offer a meritorious defense or reasonable excuse for failing to answer the complaint (European Am. Bank v Legum, 248 AD2d 206, 208 [1998]). Concur—Andrias, J.P., Saxe, Sullivan and Gonzalez, JJ.

Cite This Page — Counsel Stack

Bluebook (online)

5 A.D.3d 182, 772 N.Y.S.2d 515, 2004 N.Y. App. Div. LEXIS 2348, Counsel Stack Legal Research, https://law.counselstack.com/opinion/jiminez-v-city-of-new-york-nyappdiv-2004.

Opinion

Related

Cite This Page — Counsel Stack