Louros v. Concepcion

Appellate Division of the Supreme Court of New York

Louros v. Concepcion

269 A.D.2d 574, 703 N.Y.S.2d 749, 2000 N.Y. App. Div. LEXIS 2129

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

DecidedFebruary 28, 2000

StatusPublished

This text of 269 A.D.2d 574 (Louros v. Concepcion) 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

Louros v. Concepcion, 269 A.D.2d 574, 703 N.Y.S.2d 749, 2000 N.Y. App. Div. LEXIS 2129 (N.Y. Ct. App. 2000).

Pincite

Opinion

—In an action to recover damages for personal injuries, the plaintiff appeals from an order of the Supreme Court, Kings County (Knipel, J.), dated April 30, 1999, which denied her motion to enter a judgment upon the defendant’s alleged default in answering, and granted the defendant’s cross motion to dismiss the complaint based on lack of personal jurisdiction pursuant to CPLR 3211 (a) (8).

Ordered that the order is affirmed, with costs.

The plaintiff failed to properly serve the defendant, a resident of the State of Connecticut. Accordingly, the Supreme Court properly granted the defendant’s timely cross motion to dismiss the complaint pursuant to CPLR 3211 (a) (8).

The plaintiff’s remaining contentions are without merit. Mangano, P. J., Santucci, Krausman, Florio and Schmidt, JJ., concur.

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

—In an action to recover damages for personal injuries, the plaintiff appeals from an order of the Supreme Court, Kings County (Knipel, J.), dated April 30, 1999, which denied her motion to enter a judgment upon the defendant’s alleged default in answering, and granted the defendant’s cross motion to dismiss the complaint based on lack of personal jurisdiction pursuant to CPLR 3211 (a) (8).

Ordered that the order is affirmed, with costs.

The plaintiff failed to properly serve the defendant, a resident of the State of Connecticut. Accordingly, the Supreme Court properly granted the defendant’s timely cross motion to dismiss the complaint pursuant to CPLR 3211 (a) (8).

The plaintiff’s remaining contentions are without merit. Mangano, P. J., Santucci, Krausman, Florio and Schmidt, JJ., concur.

Cite This Page — Counsel Stack

Bluebook (online)

269 A.D.2d 574, 703 N.Y.S.2d 749, 2000 N.Y. App. Div. LEXIS 2129, Counsel Stack Legal Research, https://law.counselstack.com/opinion/louros-v-concepcion-nyappdiv-2000.