Monks v. Pandolfi

Appellate Division of the Supreme Court of New York

Monks v. Pandolfi

274 A.D.2d 381, 711 N.Y.S.2d 762, 2000 N.Y. App. Div. LEXIS 7543

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

DecidedJuly 3, 2000

StatusPublished

Cited by2 cases

This text of 274 A.D.2d 381 (Monks v. Pandolfi) 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

Monks v. Pandolfi, 274 A.D.2d 381, 711 N.Y.S.2d 762, 2000 N.Y. App. Div. LEXIS 7543 (N.Y. Ct. App. 2000).

Pincite

Opinion

—In an action to recover damages for conversion, the defendants John Pandolfi, Lillian Pandolfi, and Lilpan Realty Corp. appeal from an order of the Supreme Court, Nassau County (Davis, J.), dated June 2, 1999, which denied their motion to dismiss the complaint insofar as asserted against them on the ground of lack of jurisdiction.

Ordered that the order is reversed, on the law, with costs, the motion is granted, the complaint is dismissed insofar as asserted against the appellants, and the action against the remaining defendants is severed.

The Supreme Court erred in denying the appellants’ motion to dismiss the complaint insofar as asserted against them for lack of jurisdiction. Service of an order to show cause with accompanying papers, which included a copy of the summons and verified complaint, was not proper service of process and was insufficient to confer jurisdiction over the appellants (cf., Staskoski v Government Empls. Ins. Co., 138 AD2d 587; Happy Age Shops v Maty as, 128 AD2d 754). Furthermore, the plaintiffs service upon the appellants of a supplemental summons and amended verified complaint without leave of the court and without having filed the supplemental summons and amended verified complaint, was ineffective either to join the appellants to the pending action or to commence a new action against them (see, CPLR 305 [a]; 1003; Rols Capital Co. v Beeten, 264 AD2d 724). O’Brien, J. P., Joy, Luciano 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 conversion, the defendants John Pandolfi, Lillian Pandolfi, and Lilpan Realty Corp. appeal from an order of the Supreme Court, Nassau County (Davis, J.), dated June 2, 1999, which denied their motion to dismiss the complaint insofar as asserted against them on the ground of lack of jurisdiction.

Ordered that the order is reversed, on the law, with costs, the motion is granted, the complaint is dismissed insofar as asserted against the appellants, and the action against the remaining defendants is severed.

The Supreme Court erred in denying the appellants’ motion to dismiss the complaint insofar as asserted against them for lack of jurisdiction. Service of an order to show cause with accompanying papers, which included a copy of the summons and verified complaint, was not proper service of process and was insufficient to confer jurisdiction over the appellants (cf., Staskoski v Government Empls. Ins. Co., 138 AD2d 587; Happy Age Shops v Maty as, 128 AD2d 754). Furthermore, the plaintiffs service upon the appellants of a supplemental summons and amended verified complaint without leave of the court and without having filed the supplemental summons and amended verified complaint, was ineffective either to join the appellants to the pending action or to commence a new action against them (see, CPLR 305 [a]; 1003; Rols Capital Co. v Beeten, 264 AD2d 724). O’Brien, J. P., Joy, Luciano and Schmidt, JJ., concur.

Cite This Page — Counsel Stack

Bluebook (online)

274 A.D.2d 381, 711 N.Y.S.2d 762, 2000 N.Y. App. Div. LEXIS 7543, Counsel Stack Legal Research, https://law.counselstack.com/opinion/monks-v-pandolfi-nyappdiv-2000.

Opinion

Related

Cite This Page — Counsel Stack