McNaughton v. RY Management, Inc.

Appellate Division of the Supreme Court of New York

McNaughton v. RY Management, Inc.

105 A.D.3d 416, 961 N.Y.S.2d 774

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

DecidedApril 2, 2013

StatusPublished

This text of 105 A.D.3d 416 (McNaughton v. RY Management, Inc.) 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

McNaughton v. RY Management, Inc., 105 A.D.3d 416, 961 N.Y.S.2d 774 (N.Y. Ct. App. 2013).

Pincite

Opinion

Order, Supreme Court, [417]*417Bronx County (Julia I. Rodriguez, J.), entered March 5, 2012, which denied plaintiffs motion for a default judgment against defendants, and granted defendant RY Management, Inc.’s cross motion to dismiss the complaint on the ground of lack of service, unanimously affirmed, without costs.

The court properly dismissed the action, as plaintiff failed to offer any proof of service of process (see Security Pac. Natl. Trust [N.Y.] v Chunassamy, 289 AD2d 151 [1st Dept 2001]).

Nor has plaintiff shown any reason why the stipulation of discontinuance with prejudice entered into with defendant New York City Housing Authority should not be enforced (see Hal-lock v State of New York, 64 NY2d 224, 230 [1984]; Lukaszuk v Lukaszuk, 304 AD2d 625, 625 [2d Dept 2003]).

Concur—Mazzarelli, J.E, Moskowitz, DeGrasse, Feinman and Clark, JJ.

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

Order, Supreme Court, [417]*417Bronx County (Julia I. Rodriguez, J.), entered March 5, 2012, which denied plaintiffs motion for a default judgment against defendants, and granted defendant RY Management, Inc.’s cross motion to dismiss the complaint on the ground of lack of service, unanimously affirmed, without costs.

The court properly dismissed the action, as plaintiff failed to offer any proof of service of process (see Security Pac. Natl. Trust [N.Y.] v Chunassamy, 289 AD2d 151 [1st Dept 2001]).

Nor has plaintiff shown any reason why the stipulation of discontinuance with prejudice entered into with defendant New York City Housing Authority should not be enforced (see Hal-lock v State of New York, 64 NY2d 224, 230 [1984]; Lukaszuk v Lukaszuk, 304 AD2d 625, 625 [2d Dept 2003]).

Concur—Mazzarelli, J.E, Moskowitz, DeGrasse, Feinman and Clark, JJ.

Cite This Page — Counsel Stack

Bluebook (online)

105 A.D.3d 416, 961 N.Y.S.2d 774, Counsel Stack Legal Research, https://law.counselstack.com/opinion/mcnaughton-v-ry-management-inc-nyappdiv-2013.

Opinion

Related

Cite This Page — Counsel Stack