Meiselman v. Myers Moving & Storage Co.

Appellate Division of the Supreme Court of New York

Meiselman v. Myers Moving & Storage Co.

190 A.D.2d 571

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

DecidedFebruary 11, 1993

StatusPublished

This text of 190 A.D.2d 571 (Meiselman v. Myers Moving & Storage 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

Meiselman v. Myers Moving & Storage Co., 190 A.D.2d 571 (N.Y. Ct. App. 1993).

Pincite

Opinion

— Order, Supreme Court, New York County (William J. Davis, J.), entered March 5, 1992, which denied defendants’ motion to vacate a default judgment, unanimously reversed, on the law, the motion granted, the judgment, entered on April 4, 1991, vacated, the complaint dismissed and the bond posted as a condition to stay enforcement proceedings under the judgment released, without costs.

The summons and complaint which purported to commence this action were patently defective, as they improperly denominated the court in which the action was pending. Furthermore, the only attempt at service upon the corporate defendant was by mail, which is not authorized by CPLR 311. Moreover, plaintiff made no attempt at all to effect service upon defendants Monteverdi and Kaplan.

Under these circumstances, it is clear that the court never obtained jurisdiction over these defendants and their motion to vacate the default judgment entered against them should have been granted. Concur — Murphy, P. J., Carro, Rosenberger and Ellerin, JJ.

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

— Order, Supreme Court, New York County (William J. Davis, J.), entered March 5, 1992, which denied defendants’ motion to vacate a default judgment, unanimously reversed, on the law, the motion granted, the judgment, entered on April 4, 1991, vacated, the complaint dismissed and the bond posted as a condition to stay enforcement proceedings under the judgment released, without costs.

The summons and complaint which purported to commence this action were patently defective, as they improperly denominated the court in which the action was pending. Furthermore, the only attempt at service upon the corporate defendant was by mail, which is not authorized by CPLR 311. Moreover, plaintiff made no attempt at all to effect service upon defendants Monteverdi and Kaplan.

Under these circumstances, it is clear that the court never obtained jurisdiction over these defendants and their motion to vacate the default judgment entered against them should have been granted. Concur — Murphy, P. J., Carro, Rosenberger and Ellerin, JJ.

Cite This Page — Counsel Stack

Bluebook (online)

190 A.D.2d 571, Counsel Stack Legal Research, https://law.counselstack.com/opinion/meiselman-v-myers-moving-storage-co-nyappdiv-1993.