Morin v. Ranasz

Appellate Division of the Supreme Court of New York

Morin v. Ranasz

25 A.D.2d 782, 269 N.Y.S.2d 493, 1966 N.Y. App. Div. LEXIS 4446

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

DecidedApril 25, 1966

StatusPublished

This text of 25 A.D.2d 782 (Morin v. Ranasz) 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

Morin v. Ranasz, 25 A.D.2d 782, 269 N.Y.S.2d 493, 1966 N.Y. App. Div. LEXIS 4446 (N.Y. Ct. App. 1966).

Pincite

Opinion

In a negligence action to recover damages for personal injuries, defendant appeals from an order of the Supreme Court, Kings County, entered April 26, 1965, which (1) granted plaintiff’s motion to vacate a prior default order of the court granting defendant’s prior motion to dismiss the complaint pursuant to statute (CPLR 3211, subd. [a], pars. 5, 8); and (2) denied defendant’s said motion to dismiss the complaint. Order modified by deleting its last decretal paragraph denying defendant’s motion and by substituting therefor a provision granting such motion, dismissing the complaint and directing judgment to be entered in defendant’s favor. As so modified, order affirmed insofar as appealed from, with $10 costs and disbursements to defendant. In our opinion, the record fails to demonstrate by requisite proof that defendant was validly served with process within the period of the applicable ■three-year Statute of Limitations.

Beldoek, P. J., Ughetta, Christ, Brennan and Hopkins, JJ., concur.

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

In a negligence action to recover damages for personal injuries, defendant appeals from an order of the Supreme Court, Kings County, entered April 26, 1965, which (1) granted plaintiff’s motion to vacate a prior default order of the court granting defendant’s prior motion to dismiss the complaint pursuant to statute (CPLR 3211, subd. [a], pars. 5, 8); and (2) denied defendant’s said motion to dismiss the complaint. Order modified by deleting its last decretal paragraph denying defendant’s motion and by substituting therefor a provision granting such motion, dismissing the complaint and directing judgment to be entered in defendant’s favor. As so modified, order affirmed insofar as appealed from, with $10 costs and disbursements to defendant. In our opinion, the record fails to demonstrate by requisite proof that defendant was validly served with process within the period of the applicable ■three-year Statute of Limitations.

Beldoek, P. J., Ughetta, Christ, Brennan and Hopkins, JJ., concur.

Cite This Page — Counsel Stack

Bluebook (online)

25 A.D.2d 782, 269 N.Y.S.2d 493, 1966 N.Y. App. Div. LEXIS 4446, Counsel Stack Legal Research, https://law.counselstack.com/opinion/morin-v-ranasz-nyappdiv-1966.