Progress Capitol, Inc. v. Ampower Semiconductor Corp.

Appellate Division of the Supreme Court of New York

Progress Capitol, Inc. v. Ampower Semiconductor Corp.

112 A.D.2d 925, 492 N.Y.S.2d 443, 1985 N.Y. App. Div. LEXIS 52138

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

DecidedAugust 5, 1985

StatusPublished

This text of 112 A.D.2d 925 (Progress Capitol, Inc. v. Ampower Semiconductor Corp.) 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

Progress Capitol, Inc. v. Ampower Semiconductor Corp., 112 A.D.2d 925, 492 N.Y.S.2d 443, 1985 N.Y. App. Div. LEXIS 52138 (N.Y. Ct. App. 1985).

Pincite

Opinion

In an action, inter alia, on a promissory note, plaintiff appeals from (1) an order of the Supreme Court, Suffolk County (Christ, J.), dated June 23, 1983, which granted the motion of defendant 246057 Investments, Ltd., to dismiss the complaint as against it based on lack of personal jurisdiction, and (2) a further order of the same court, dated October 18, 1983, which, upon granting reargument, adhered to the original determination.

Appeal from the order dated June 23, 1983 dismissed, without costs or disbursements. That order was superseded by the order dated October 18, 1983.

Order dated October 18, 1983, reversed, on the law, without costs or disbursements, order dated June 23, 1983 vacated, and matter remitted to Special Term for a hearing on the issue of whether service of process was properly made upon defendant 246057 Investments, Ltd.

Contrary to the finding of Special Term, plaintiff has sustained its burden of proving a jurisdictional basis with respect to defendant 246057 Investments, Ltd. (see, CPLR 302 [a] [1]; Parke-Bernet Galleries v Franklyn, 26 NY2d 13). Therefore, Special Term’s order adhering to its original decision dismissing the complaint for lack of a jurisdictional basis must be reversed. A dispute exists, however, as to whether defendant [926]*926246057 Investments, Ltd., was properly served with process. Special Term specifically declined to address this issue, and since the record is insufficient to permit this court to make a determination, we remit the matter to Special Term for a hearing on the question of whether proper service was effected upon the moving defendant. Mollen, P. J., Mangano, O’Con-nor and Weinstein, JJ., concur.

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

In an action, inter alia, on a promissory note, plaintiff appeals from (1) an order of the Supreme Court, Suffolk County (Christ, J.), dated June 23, 1983, which granted the motion of defendant 246057 Investments, Ltd., to dismiss the complaint as against it based on lack of personal jurisdiction, and (2) a further order of the same court, dated October 18, 1983, which, upon granting reargument, adhered to the original determination.

Appeal from the order dated June 23, 1983 dismissed, without costs or disbursements. That order was superseded by the order dated October 18, 1983.

Order dated October 18, 1983, reversed, on the law, without costs or disbursements, order dated June 23, 1983 vacated, and matter remitted to Special Term for a hearing on the issue of whether service of process was properly made upon defendant 246057 Investments, Ltd.

Contrary to the finding of Special Term, plaintiff has sustained its burden of proving a jurisdictional basis with respect to defendant 246057 Investments, Ltd. (see, CPLR 302 [a] [1]; Parke-Bernet Galleries v Franklyn, 26 NY2d 13). Therefore, Special Term’s order adhering to its original decision dismissing the complaint for lack of a jurisdictional basis must be reversed. A dispute exists, however, as to whether defendant [926]*926246057 Investments, Ltd., was properly served with process. Special Term specifically declined to address this issue, and since the record is insufficient to permit this court to make a determination, we remit the matter to Special Term for a hearing on the question of whether proper service was effected upon the moving defendant. Mollen, P. J., Mangano, O’Con-nor and Weinstein, JJ., concur.

Cite This Page — Counsel Stack

Bluebook (online)

112 A.D.2d 925, 492 N.Y.S.2d 443, 1985 N.Y. App. Div. LEXIS 52138, Counsel Stack Legal Research, https://law.counselstack.com/opinion/progress-capitol-inc-v-ampower-semiconductor-corp-nyappdiv-1985.

Opinion

Related

Cite This Page — Counsel Stack