Leunes v. Lukas

Appellate Division of the Supreme Court of New York

Leunes v. Lukas

96 A.D.2d 853, 465 N.Y.S.2d 697, 1983 N.Y. App. Div. LEXIS 19444

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

DecidedAugust 8, 1983

StatusPublished

This text of 96 A.D.2d 853 (Leunes v. Lukas) 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

Leunes v. Lukas, 96 A.D.2d 853, 465 N.Y.S.2d 697, 1983 N.Y. App. Div. LEXIS 19444 (N.Y. Ct. App. 1983).

Pincite

Opinion

— In an action, inter alia, to recover damages for breach of contract, fraud and professional negligence, defendant Lukas appeals from an order of the Supreme Court, Nassau County (Robbins, J.), dated October 22, [854]*8541981, which, inter alia, vacated a prior order dismissing the action as to him and determined that the complaint was timely served on him. By order dated November 15,1982 this court remitted the matter to Special Term to hear and report on the question of when the complaint was initially served. The appeal has been held in abeyance in the interim (Leunes v Lukas, 90 AD2d 808). Special Term has now complied. Order affirmed, without costs or disbursements. Upon remittitur, Special Term determined that the complaint was duly served on April 23, 1981. Based upon this finding we conclude that Special Term did not err in vacating the prior order of dismissal and deeming the complaint timely served. Lazer, J. P., Gibbons, Thompson and Bracken, JJ., concur.

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

— In an action, inter alia, to recover damages for breach of contract, fraud and professional negligence, defendant Lukas appeals from an order of the Supreme Court, Nassau County (Robbins, J.), dated October 22, [854]*8541981, which, inter alia, vacated a prior order dismissing the action as to him and determined that the complaint was timely served on him. By order dated November 15,1982 this court remitted the matter to Special Term to hear and report on the question of when the complaint was initially served. The appeal has been held in abeyance in the interim (Leunes v Lukas, 90 AD2d 808). Special Term has now complied. Order affirmed, without costs or disbursements. Upon remittitur, Special Term determined that the complaint was duly served on April 23, 1981. Based upon this finding we conclude that Special Term did not err in vacating the prior order of dismissal and deeming the complaint timely served. Lazer, J. P., Gibbons, Thompson and Bracken, JJ., concur.

Cite This Page — Counsel Stack

Bluebook (online)

96 A.D.2d 853, 465 N.Y.S.2d 697, 1983 N.Y. App. Div. LEXIS 19444, Counsel Stack Legal Research, https://law.counselstack.com/opinion/leunes-v-lukas-nyappdiv-1983.

Opinion

Related

Cite This Page — Counsel Stack