LaMarca v. Pak-Mor Manufacturing Co.

Appellate Division of the Supreme Court of New York

LaMarca v. Pak-Mor Manufacturing Co.

266 A.D.2d 899, 698 N.Y.S.2d 195, 1999 N.Y. App. Div. LEXIS 11739

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

DecidedNovember 12, 1999

StatusPublished

This text of 266 A.D.2d 899 (LaMarca v. Pak-Mor Manufacturing 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

LaMarca v. Pak-Mor Manufacturing Co., 266 A.D.2d 899, 698 N.Y.S.2d 195, 1999 N.Y. App. Div. LEXIS 11739 (N.Y. Ct. App. 1999).

Pincite

Opinion

—Order unanimously affirmed without costs. Memorandum: Supreme Court properly granted the motion of defendant-third-party plaintiff, Pak-Mor Manufacturing Company (Pak-Mor), seeking dismissal of the cross claim of defendant Truckmobile Equipment Corp. and the counterclaim of third-party defendant, Town of Niagara (Town). We reject plaintiffs contention that Pak-Mor previously moved to dismiss the complaint for lack of personal jurisdiction and thus that the subject motion is barred by the single motion rule set forth in CPLR 3211 (e). That rule does not apply where a second motion is directed to a different pleading (see, Nassau Roofing & Sheet Metal Co. v Celotex Corp., 74 AD2d 679, 680). We also reject plaintiff’s contention that Pak-Mor waived the defense of lack of personal jurisdiction by failing to assert it in the reply to the Town’s counterclaim. The defense was included in the answer to the complaint that was properly served with the third-party complaint pursuant to CPLR 1007. (Appeal from Order of Supreme Court, Niagara County, Koshian, J. — Dismiss Pleading.) Present — Green, J. P., Lawton, Wisner, Hurlbutt and Balio, JJ.

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

—Order unanimously affirmed without costs. Memorandum: Supreme Court properly granted the motion of defendant-third-party plaintiff, Pak-Mor Manufacturing Company (Pak-Mor), seeking dismissal of the cross claim of defendant Truckmobile Equipment Corp. and the counterclaim of third-party defendant, Town of Niagara (Town). We reject plaintiffs contention that Pak-Mor previously moved to dismiss the complaint for lack of personal jurisdiction and thus that the subject motion is barred by the single motion rule set forth in CPLR 3211 (e). That rule does not apply where a second motion is directed to a different pleading (see, Nassau Roofing & Sheet Metal Co. v Celotex Corp., 74 AD2d 679, 680). We also reject plaintiff’s contention that Pak-Mor waived the defense of lack of personal jurisdiction by failing to assert it in the reply to the Town’s counterclaim. The defense was included in the answer to the complaint that was properly served with the third-party complaint pursuant to CPLR 1007. (Appeal from Order of Supreme Court, Niagara County, Koshian, J. — Dismiss Pleading.) Present — Green, J. P., Lawton, Wisner, Hurlbutt and Balio, JJ.

Cite This Page — Counsel Stack

Bluebook (online)

266 A.D.2d 899, 698 N.Y.S.2d 195, 1999 N.Y. App. Div. LEXIS 11739, Counsel Stack Legal Research, https://law.counselstack.com/opinion/lamarca-v-pak-mor-manufacturing-co-nyappdiv-1999.

Opinion

Related

Cite This Page — Counsel Stack