Pacek v. Ferrar

258 A.D. 772, 14 N.Y.S.2d 814
Appellate Division of the Supreme Court of the State of New York·Decided October 4, 1939·Published·Cited by 5 cases

Opinion

— Order affirmed, with ten dollars costs and disbursements. Memorandum: No personal service of the summons and complaint in the foreclosure action was made on the respondent Ferrar. The entry of a deficiency judgment against him, therefore, was absolutely void for lack of jurisdiction of his person. The Supreme Court has inherent power to vacate a judgment so entered. (Civ. Prac. Act, § 1083; Matter of Rudgers, 250 App. Div. 359; Matter of Battalico v. Knickebocker Fireproofing Co., Id. 258; motion for leave to appeal denied, 274 N. Y. 641; Kamp v. Kamp, 59 id. 212.) Nor has Ferrar appeared generally in this action so as to give the court jurisdiction. (Noble v. Crandall, 49 Hun, 474.) All concur. (The order amends a judgment in a foreclosure action.) Present — Crosby, Lewis, Cunningham, Taylor and Dowling, JJ.

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

Pacek v. Ferrar, 258 A.D. 772, 14 N.Y.S.2d 814 (N.Y. Ct. App. 1939).

258 A.D. 772 (Pacek v. Ferrar) — published by Counsel Stack Legal Research, free access to 12M+ legal documents.

Related

Cobb v. Selmonsky
36 Misc. 2d 371 (New York Supreme Court, 1962)
Marco v. Sachs
25 Misc. 2d 763 (New York Supreme Court, 1960)
Detzel v. Detzel
22 Misc. 2d 76 (New York Supreme Court, 1959)
Wheelock v. Wheelock
3 A.D.2d 25 (Appellate Division of the Supreme Court of New York, 1956)
Langer v. Wiehl
207 Misc. 826 (New York Supreme Court, 1955)