Peterkin v. Houses

Appellate Division of the Supreme Court of New York

Peterkin v. Houses

87 A.D.3d 649, 928 N.Y.2d 474

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

DecidedAugust 16, 2011

StatusPublished

Cited by3 cases

This text of 87 A.D.3d 649 (Peterkin v. Houses) 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

Peterkin v. Houses, 87 A.D.3d 649, 928 N.Y.2d 474 (N.Y. Ct. App. 2011).

Pincite

Opinion

[650]*650A special proceeding is “commenced by filing a petition” (CPLR 304; see Matter of Montecalvo v Columbia County, 274 AD2d 868, 869 [2000]). “The failure to file the initial papers necessary to institute a proceeding constitutes a nonwaivable jurisdictional defect rendering the proceeding a nullity” (Matter of One Beacon Ins. Co./CGU Ins. Co. v Daly, 7 AD3d 717, 718 [2004]). Here, since the petitioner failed to file the petition, the “proceeding” was a nullity (see Matter of Parkinson v Leahy, 277 AD2d 810, 811 [2000]). Therefore, the Supreme Court should have granted that branch of the appellant’s motion which was to dismiss the “proceeding” pursuant to CPLR 3211 (a) (2) for lack of subject matter jurisdiction.

Alternatively, since the appellant demonstrated that it was never served with the petition, the Supreme Court should have granted that branch of its motion which was to dismiss the “proceeding” pursuant to CPLR 3211 (a) (8) for lack of personal jurisdiction {see Matter of Ortiz v State of N.Y. Off. of Children & Family Servs., 66 AD3d 1026, 1027 [2009]; see also Matter of Barclay v State of New York Dept. of Correctional Servs., 22 AD3d 974 [2005]).

In light of our determination, we need not address the appellant’s remaining contentions. Mastro, J.P, Chambers, Austin and Cohen, JJ., concur.

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

[650]*650A special proceeding is “commenced by filing a petition” (CPLR 304; see Matter of Montecalvo v Columbia County, 274 AD2d 868, 869 [2000]). “The failure to file the initial papers necessary to institute a proceeding constitutes a nonwaivable jurisdictional defect rendering the proceeding a nullity” (Matter of One Beacon Ins. Co./CGU Ins. Co. v Daly, 7 AD3d 717, 718 [2004]). Here, since the petitioner failed to file the petition, the “proceeding” was a nullity (see Matter of Parkinson v Leahy, 277 AD2d 810, 811 [2000]). Therefore, the Supreme Court should have granted that branch of the appellant’s motion which was to dismiss the “proceeding” pursuant to CPLR 3211 (a) (2) for lack of subject matter jurisdiction.

Alternatively, since the appellant demonstrated that it was never served with the petition, the Supreme Court should have granted that branch of its motion which was to dismiss the “proceeding” pursuant to CPLR 3211 (a) (8) for lack of personal jurisdiction {see Matter of Ortiz v State of N.Y. Off. of Children & Family Servs., 66 AD3d 1026, 1027 [2009]; see also Matter of Barclay v State of New York Dept. of Correctional Servs., 22 AD3d 974 [2005]).

In light of our determination, we need not address the appellant’s remaining contentions. Mastro, J.P, Chambers, Austin and Cohen, JJ., concur.

Cite This Page — Counsel Stack

Bluebook (online)

87 A.D.3d 649, 928 N.Y.2d 474, Counsel Stack Legal Research, https://law.counselstack.com/opinion/peterkin-v-houses-nyappdiv-2011.

Opinion

Related

Cite This Page — Counsel Stack