Keane v. Kamin

Appellate Division of the Supreme Court of New York

Keane v. Kamin

257 A.D.2d 433, 683 N.Y.S.2d 250, 1999 N.Y. App. Div. LEXIS 243

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

DecidedJanuary 12, 1999

StatusPublished

This text of 257 A.D.2d 433 (Keane v. Kamin) 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

Keane v. Kamin, 257 A.D.2d 433, 683 N.Y.S.2d 250, 1999 N.Y. App. Div. LEXIS 243 (N.Y. Ct. App. 1999).

Pincite

Opinion

—Order, Supreme Court, New York County (Barbara Kapnick, J.), entered on or about May 8, 1997, which denied plaintiffs motion for a default judgment and granted defendants’ cross motion to dismiss the complaint for lack of jurisdiction, unanimously affirmed, without costs.

[434]*434Plaintiff concedes that since defendants were no longer domiciled or residing in New York when the action was commenced, no traditional or long-arm basis exists for asserting jurisdiction in this action arising out of an out-of-State accident, but argues that defendants’ failure to notify the Department of Motor Vehicles of the postaccident changes in their addresses, as required by Vehicle and Traffic Law § 505 (5), estops them from denying their residences at the New York addresses produced by defendant driver at the scene of the accident for both herself and defendant owner of the vehicle (citing, inter alia, Sherrill v Pettiford, 172 AD2d 512). This argument was rejected by the IAS Court on the ground that plaintiff never attempted to serve defendants at such New York addresses. We agree. There can be no estoppel without detrimental reliance (compare, supra; see, Lynn v Lynn, 302 NY 193, 205). Concur— Ellerin, J. P., Nardelli, Tom and Andrias, JJ.

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

—Order, Supreme Court, New York County (Barbara Kapnick, J.), entered on or about May 8, 1997, which denied plaintiffs motion for a default judgment and granted defendants’ cross motion to dismiss the complaint for lack of jurisdiction, unanimously affirmed, without costs.

[434]*434Plaintiff concedes that since defendants were no longer domiciled or residing in New York when the action was commenced, no traditional or long-arm basis exists for asserting jurisdiction in this action arising out of an out-of-State accident, but argues that defendants’ failure to notify the Department of Motor Vehicles of the postaccident changes in their addresses, as required by Vehicle and Traffic Law § 505 (5), estops them from denying their residences at the New York addresses produced by defendant driver at the scene of the accident for both herself and defendant owner of the vehicle (citing, inter alia, Sherrill v Pettiford, 172 AD2d 512). This argument was rejected by the IAS Court on the ground that plaintiff never attempted to serve defendants at such New York addresses. We agree. There can be no estoppel without detrimental reliance (compare, supra; see, Lynn v Lynn, 302 NY 193, 205). Concur— Ellerin, J. P., Nardelli, Tom and Andrias, JJ.

Cite This Page — Counsel Stack

Bluebook (online)

257 A.D.2d 433, 683 N.Y.S.2d 250, 1999 N.Y. App. Div. LEXIS 243, Counsel Stack Legal Research, https://law.counselstack.com/opinion/keane-v-kamin-nyappdiv-1999.

Opinion

Related

Cite This Page — Counsel Stack