Mitchell v. Cunningham

Appellate Division of the Supreme Court of New York

Mitchell v. Cunningham

281 A.D.2d 192, 721 N.Y.S.2d 527, 2001 N.Y. App. Div. LEXIS 2194

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

DecidedMarch 8, 2001

StatusPublished

Cited by2 cases

This text of 281 A.D.2d 192 (Mitchell v. Cunningham) 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

Mitchell v. Cunningham, 281 A.D.2d 192, 721 N.Y.S.2d 527, 2001 N.Y. App. Div. LEXIS 2194 (N.Y. Ct. App. 2001).

Pincite

Opinion

Order, Supreme Court, Bronx County (George Friedman, J.), entered February 8, 2000, which, in an action to recover damages for injuries sustained in an automobile accident, granted defendant’s motion to dismiss the complaint for lack of personal jurisdiction, unanimously affirmed, without costs.

There is no merit to plaintiffs’ contention that defendant is estopped from asserting that New York courts lack jurisdiction over his person because he failed to notify the Department of Motor Vehicles of his new, out-of-State address pursuant to Vehicle and Traffic Law § 505 (5) (see, Keane v Kamin, 94 NY2d 263). There is simply no jurisdictional predicate for this action. Defendant was not a domiciliary of New York, either at the time of the complained of New Jersey accident or at the time the action was commenced (id.). Concur — Sullivan, P. J., Nardelli, Williams, Saxe and Friedman, JJ.

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

Order, Supreme Court, Bronx County (George Friedman, J.), entered February 8, 2000, which, in an action to recover damages for injuries sustained in an automobile accident, granted defendant’s motion to dismiss the complaint for lack of personal jurisdiction, unanimously affirmed, without costs.

There is no merit to plaintiffs’ contention that defendant is estopped from asserting that New York courts lack jurisdiction over his person because he failed to notify the Department of Motor Vehicles of his new, out-of-State address pursuant to Vehicle and Traffic Law § 505 (5) (see, Keane v Kamin, 94 NY2d 263). There is simply no jurisdictional predicate for this action. Defendant was not a domiciliary of New York, either at the time of the complained of New Jersey accident or at the time the action was commenced (id.). Concur — Sullivan, P. J., Nardelli, Williams, Saxe and Friedman, JJ.

Cite This Page — Counsel Stack

Bluebook (online)

281 A.D.2d 192, 721 N.Y.S.2d 527, 2001 N.Y. App. Div. LEXIS 2194, Counsel Stack Legal Research, https://law.counselstack.com/opinion/mitchell-v-cunningham-nyappdiv-2001.

Opinion

Related

Cite This Page — Counsel Stack