Mensah v. Polytechnic University

Appellate Division of the Supreme Court of New York

Mensah v. Polytechnic University

68 A.D.3d 411, 890 N.Y.2d 486

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

DecidedDecember 1, 2009

StatusPublished

This text of 68 A.D.3d 411 (Mensah v. Polytechnic University) 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

Mensah v. Polytechnic University, 68 A.D.3d 411, 890 N.Y.2d 486 (N.Y. Ct. App. 2009).

Pincite

Opinion

The court lacked personal jurisdiction of Polytechnic and Belcan because plaintiff pro se served them by mail (CELR 311 [a]). In addition, the complaint, which seeks compensation for [412]*412the appropriation of a design for a “submarine spaceship,” fails to state a cause of action against Belcan because it does not indicate Belcan’s role in either the design or the manufacture of any submarine spaceship or any connection between Belcan and plaintiffs alleged damages. The complaint also fails to state a cause of action against Polytechnic because plaintiffs factual allegations pertaining to Polytechnic are “either inherently incredible or flatly contradicted by documentary evidence” (Kliebert v McKoan, 228 AD2d 232, 232 [1996], lv denied 89 NY2d 802 [1996]). Concur — Tom, J.P., Sweeny, Moskowitz, Acosta and Abdus-Salaam, JJ.

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

The court lacked personal jurisdiction of Polytechnic and Belcan because plaintiff pro se served them by mail (CELR 311 [a]). In addition, the complaint, which seeks compensation for [412]*412the appropriation of a design for a “submarine spaceship,” fails to state a cause of action against Belcan because it does not indicate Belcan’s role in either the design or the manufacture of any submarine spaceship or any connection between Belcan and plaintiffs alleged damages. The complaint also fails to state a cause of action against Polytechnic because plaintiffs factual allegations pertaining to Polytechnic are “either inherently incredible or flatly contradicted by documentary evidence” (Kliebert v McKoan, 228 AD2d 232, 232 [1996], lv denied 89 NY2d 802 [1996]). Concur — Tom, J.P., Sweeny, Moskowitz, Acosta and Abdus-Salaam, JJ.

Cite This Page — Counsel Stack

Bluebook (online)

68 A.D.3d 411, 890 N.Y.2d 486, Counsel Stack Legal Research, https://law.counselstack.com/opinion/mensah-v-polytechnic-university-nyappdiv-2009.

Opinion

Related

Cite This Page — Counsel Stack