Purification v. Kindler

Appellate Division of the Supreme Court of New York

Purification v. Kindler

253 A.D.2d 869, 678 N.Y.S.2d 526, 1998 N.Y. App. Div. LEXIS 9868

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

DecidedSeptember 28, 1998

StatusPublished

This text of 253 A.D.2d 869 (Purification v. Kindler) 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

Purification v. Kindler, 253 A.D.2d 869, 678 N.Y.S.2d 526, 1998 N.Y. App. Div. LEXIS 9868 (N.Y. Ct. App. 1998).

Pincite

Opinion

In an action to recover damages for personal injuries, the plaintiff appeals from an order and judgment (one paper) of the Supreme Court, Queens County (Berke, J.), dated July 14, 1997, which, upon granting the motion of the defendant Sara Elizabeth Kindler to dismiss the complaint insofar as asserted against her for lack of personal jurisdiction, dismissed the complaint insofar as asserted against that defendant.

Ordered that the order and judgment is affirmed, with costs.

We agree with the Supreme Court that the plaintiff did not sustain her burden of establishing jurisdiction over the person of the defendant Sara Elizabeth Kindler under the long-arm statute (see, CPLR 302 [a]; Bramwell v Tucker, 107 AD2d 731). O’Brien, J. P., Ritter, Thompson, Friedmann and Goldstein, JJ., concur.

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

In an action to recover damages for personal injuries, the plaintiff appeals from an order and judgment (one paper) of the Supreme Court, Queens County (Berke, J.), dated July 14, 1997, which, upon granting the motion of the defendant Sara Elizabeth Kindler to dismiss the complaint insofar as asserted against her for lack of personal jurisdiction, dismissed the complaint insofar as asserted against that defendant.

Ordered that the order and judgment is affirmed, with costs.

We agree with the Supreme Court that the plaintiff did not sustain her burden of establishing jurisdiction over the person of the defendant Sara Elizabeth Kindler under the long-arm statute (see, CPLR 302 [a]; Bramwell v Tucker, 107 AD2d 731). O’Brien, J. P., Ritter, Thompson, Friedmann and Goldstein, JJ., concur.

Cite This Page — Counsel Stack

Bluebook (online)

253 A.D.2d 869, 678 N.Y.S.2d 526, 1998 N.Y. App. Div. LEXIS 9868, Counsel Stack Legal Research, https://law.counselstack.com/opinion/purification-v-kindler-nyappdiv-1998.

Opinion

Related

Cite This Page — Counsel Stack