O'Connell v. New York State Department of Motor Vehicles

Appellate Division of the Supreme Court of New York

O'Connell v. New York State Department of Motor Vehicles

278 A.D.2d 829, 717 N.Y.S.2d 444, 2000 N.Y. App. Div. LEXIS 13697

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

DecidedDecember 27, 2000

StatusPublished

This text of 278 A.D.2d 829 (O'Connell v. New York State Department of Motor Vehicles) 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

O'Connell v. New York State Department of Motor Vehicles, 278 A.D.2d 829, 717 N.Y.S.2d 444, 2000 N.Y. App. Div. LEXIS 13697 (N.Y. Ct. App. 2000).

Pincite

Opinion

Judgment unanimously reversed on the law without costs, motion granted and petition dismissed. Memorandum: Supreme Court erred in denying respondent’s motion to dismiss the petition seeking to compel respondent to reinstate petitioner’s driving privileges. Petitioner commenced this proceeding by order to show cause served at respondent’s branch office in Rochester. Petitioner failed to serve the chief executive officer of respondent or that person’s designated agent (see, CPLR 307 [2]; 403 [c], [d]), resulting in a lack of personal jurisdiction over respondent {see, Matter of Lazich v Nicolai, 254 AD2d 420). (Appeal from Judgment of Supreme Court, Monroe County, Bergin, J. — CPLR art 78.) Present— Pigott, Jr., P. J., Pine, Wisner, Scudder and Lawton, JJ.

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

Judgment unanimously reversed on the law without costs, motion granted and petition dismissed. Memorandum: Supreme Court erred in denying respondent’s motion to dismiss the petition seeking to compel respondent to reinstate petitioner’s driving privileges. Petitioner commenced this proceeding by order to show cause served at respondent’s branch office in Rochester. Petitioner failed to serve the chief executive officer of respondent or that person’s designated agent (see, CPLR 307 [2]; 403 [c], [d]), resulting in a lack of personal jurisdiction over respondent {see, Matter of Lazich v Nicolai, 254 AD2d 420). (Appeal from Judgment of Supreme Court, Monroe County, Bergin, J. — CPLR art 78.) Present— Pigott, Jr., P. J., Pine, Wisner, Scudder and Lawton, JJ.

Cite This Page — Counsel Stack

Bluebook (online)

278 A.D.2d 829, 717 N.Y.S.2d 444, 2000 N.Y. App. Div. LEXIS 13697, Counsel Stack Legal Research, https://law.counselstack.com/opinion/oconnell-v-new-york-state-department-of-motor-vehicles-nyappdiv-2000.

Opinion

Related

Cite This Page — Counsel Stack