Pierce Butler Radiator Corp. v. Osder

Appellate Division of the Supreme Court of New York

Pierce Butler Radiator Corp. v. Osder

281 A.D. 516, 120 N.Y.S.2d 779, 1953 N.Y. App. Div. LEXIS 3082

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

DecidedApril 21, 1953

StatusPublished

Cited by1 cases

This text of 281 A.D. 516 (Pierce Butler Radiator Corp. v. Osder) 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

Pierce Butler Radiator Corp. v. Osder, 281 A.D. 516, 120 N.Y.S.2d 779, 1953 N.Y. App. Div. LEXIS 3082 (N.Y. Ct. App. 1953).

Pincite

Opinions

Per Curiam.

Concededly the judgment debtor is a nonresident of this State. Though a revivor action such as this is clearly authorized by statute (Civ. Prac. Act, § 484), it is still incumbent upon the party seeking to effect the service of process to show compliance with one of the methods of substituted service which the statutes of the State permit (Importers & Traders’ Nat. Bank v. Quackenbush, 143 N. Y. 567, 571; 144 A. L. R. 403, et seq.; Parks v. Welsch, 198 Misc. 469).

[517]*517The attempted service herein was not made pursuant to any court order. The statute specifically provides for cases in which personal service may be made out of the State without a court order (Civ. Prac. Act, § 235). However, this type of action is not one enumerated in which personal service without the State is permissible without a court order, nor is the judgment debtor domiciled in the State. Jurisdiction of defendant was not obtained.

The order should be reversed and the complaint should be dismissed for lack of jurisdiction over the person of defendant.

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

Per Curiam.

Concededly the judgment debtor is a nonresident of this State. Though a revivor action such as this is clearly authorized by statute (Civ. Prac. Act, § 484), it is still incumbent upon the party seeking to effect the service of process to show compliance with one of the methods of substituted service which the statutes of the State permit (Importers & Traders’ Nat. Bank v. Quackenbush, 143 N. Y. 567, 571; 144 A. L. R. 403, et seq.; Parks v. Welsch, 198 Misc. 469).

[517]*517The attempted service herein was not made pursuant to any court order. The statute specifically provides for cases in which personal service may be made out of the State without a court order (Civ. Prac. Act, § 235). However, this type of action is not one enumerated in which personal service without the State is permissible without a court order, nor is the judgment debtor domiciled in the State. Jurisdiction of defendant was not obtained.

The order should be reversed and the complaint should be dismissed for lack of jurisdiction over the person of defendant.

Cite This Page — Counsel Stack

Bluebook (online)

281 A.D. 516, 120 N.Y.S.2d 779, 1953 N.Y. App. Div. LEXIS 3082, Counsel Stack Legal Research, https://law.counselstack.com/opinion/pierce-butler-radiator-corp-v-osder-nyappdiv-1953.

Opinions

Related

Cite This Page — Counsel Stack