Nassau Trust Co. v. Filderman

Appellate Division of the Supreme Court of New York

Nassau Trust Co. v. Filderman

52 A.D.2d 588, 382 N.Y.S.2d 121, 1976 N.Y. App. Div. LEXIS 12186

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

DecidedApril 12, 1976

StatusPublished

Cited by5 cases

This text of 52 A.D.2d 588 (Nassau Trust Co. v. Filderman) 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

Nassau Trust Co. v. Filderman, 52 A.D.2d 588, 382 N.Y.S.2d 121, 1976 N.Y. App. Div. LEXIS 12186 (N.Y. Ct. App. 1976).

Pincite

Opinion

Motion by defendant inter alia to dismiss the appeal of plaintiff from an order of the Supreme Court, Suffolk County, dated July 22, 1975. Motion granted to the extent that the appeal is dismissed, with $40 costs. The only issue raised on the appeal is whether plaintiff’s service of the summons and complaint was properly held to have been defective. Subsequent to the service and filing of the notice of appeal herein, plaintiff served defendant with a second summons and complaint seeking the identical relief sought in the case at bar. Plaintiff’s second action was terminated by the grant of summary judgment to it by an order of the Supreme Court, Suffolk County, entered January 9, 1976, upon a decision dated December 30, 1975. In view of these developments, the question of jurisdiction over defendant, which is the only issue raised on the appeal, has now become academic. Where no controversy remains with respect to the order appealed from, the appeal should be dismissed as moot (Roche v Lamb, 33 AD2d 1102; Miglietta vKennecott Copper Corp., 22 AD2d 874). In light of the circumstances above set forth, costs have been awarded to defendant. Hopkins, Acting P. J., Martuscello, Cohalan, Rabin and Shapiro, JJ., concur.

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

Motion by defendant inter alia to dismiss the appeal of plaintiff from an order of the Supreme Court, Suffolk County, dated July 22, 1975. Motion granted to the extent that the appeal is dismissed, with $40 costs. The only issue raised on the appeal is whether plaintiff’s service of the summons and complaint was properly held to have been defective. Subsequent to the service and filing of the notice of appeal herein, plaintiff served defendant with a second summons and complaint seeking the identical relief sought in the case at bar. Plaintiff’s second action was terminated by the grant of summary judgment to it by an order of the Supreme Court, Suffolk County, entered January 9, 1976, upon a decision dated December 30, 1975. In view of these developments, the question of jurisdiction over defendant, which is the only issue raised on the appeal, has now become academic. Where no controversy remains with respect to the order appealed from, the appeal should be dismissed as moot (Roche v Lamb, 33 AD2d 1102; Miglietta vKennecott Copper Corp., 22 AD2d 874). In light of the circumstances above set forth, costs have been awarded to defendant. Hopkins, Acting P. J., Martuscello, Cohalan, Rabin and Shapiro, JJ., concur.

Cite This Page — Counsel Stack

Bluebook (online)

52 A.D.2d 588, 382 N.Y.S.2d 121, 1976 N.Y. App. Div. LEXIS 12186, Counsel Stack Legal Research, https://law.counselstack.com/opinion/nassau-trust-co-v-filderman-nyappdiv-1976.

Opinion

Related

Cite This Page — Counsel Stack