Lamb v. Vergo

Appellate Division of the Supreme Court of New York

Lamb v. Vergo

133 A.D.2d 514, 519 N.Y.S.2d 891, 1987 N.Y. App. Div. LEXIS 49973

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

DecidedSeptember 30, 1987

StatusPublished

Cited by2 cases

This text of 133 A.D.2d 514 (Lamb v. Vergo) 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

Lamb v. Vergo, 133 A.D.2d 514, 519 N.Y.S.2d 891, 1987 N.Y. App. Div. LEXIS 49973 (N.Y. Ct. App. 1987).

Pincite

Opinion

— Order unanimously modified on the law and as as modified affirmed without costs, in accordance with the following memorandum: Petitioner commenced this proceeding pursuant to SCPA 2103 by serving a copy of the citation and petition upon respondent Vergo’s attorney. Unless a court order is obtained authorizing a form of substituted service, personal service is required to commence a proceeding in Surrogate’s Court (SCPA 307; Matter of Marko, 56 Misc 2d 138). Petitioner did not seek an order of the court before resorting to substituted service; therefore, personal jurisdiction over respondent Vergo was not obtained in this proceeding. Consequently, the petition must be dismissed. We pass on no other issues. (Appeals from order of Monroe County Surrogate’s Court, Ciaccio, S. — dismiss cause of action.) Present— Dillon, P. J., Doerr, Boomer, Pine and Lawton, JJ.

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

— Order unanimously modified on the law and as as modified affirmed without costs, in accordance with the following memorandum: Petitioner commenced this proceeding pursuant to SCPA 2103 by serving a copy of the citation and petition upon respondent Vergo’s attorney. Unless a court order is obtained authorizing a form of substituted service, personal service is required to commence a proceeding in Surrogate’s Court (SCPA 307; Matter of Marko, 56 Misc 2d 138). Petitioner did not seek an order of the court before resorting to substituted service; therefore, personal jurisdiction over respondent Vergo was not obtained in this proceeding. Consequently, the petition must be dismissed. We pass on no other issues. (Appeals from order of Monroe County Surrogate’s Court, Ciaccio, S. — dismiss cause of action.) Present— Dillon, P. J., Doerr, Boomer, Pine and Lawton, JJ.

Cite This Page — Counsel Stack

Bluebook (online)

133 A.D.2d 514, 519 N.Y.S.2d 891, 1987 N.Y. App. Div. LEXIS 49973, Counsel Stack Legal Research, https://law.counselstack.com/opinion/lamb-v-vergo-nyappdiv-1987.

Opinion

Related

Cite This Page — Counsel Stack