Ragland v. Ragland

Appellate Division of the Supreme Court of New York

Ragland v. Ragland

84 A.D.2d 811, 449 N.Y.S.2d 442, 1981 N.Y. App. Div. LEXIS 16022

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

DecidedNovember 23, 1981

StatusPublished

This text of 84 A.D.2d 811 (Ragland v. Ragland) 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

Ragland v. Ragland, 84 A.D.2d 811, 449 N.Y.S.2d 442, 1981 N.Y. App. Div. LEXIS 16022 (N.Y. Ct. App. 1981).

Pincite

Opinion

In an action for a separation, the plaintiff husband appeals from an order of the Supreme Court, Westchester County (Wood, J.), dated October 30,1980, which granted defendant’s motion to (1) vacate an ex parte order authorizing substituted service and (2) quash the service of the summons pursuant thereto. Order reversed, without costs of disbursements, motion denied and the order authorizing service pursuant to CPLR 308 (subd 5) is reinstated. Under the circumstances, the order providing for the personal service of the summons upon defendant’s attorney, followed by mailing the summons to defendant’s home and place of business, was appropriate. Hopkins, J. P., Damiani, Titone and Rabin, JJ., concur.

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

In an action for a separation, the plaintiff husband appeals from an order of the Supreme Court, Westchester County (Wood, J.), dated October 30,1980, which granted defendant’s motion to (1) vacate an ex parte order authorizing substituted service and (2) quash the service of the summons pursuant thereto. Order reversed, without costs of disbursements, motion denied and the order authorizing service pursuant to CPLR 308 (subd 5) is reinstated. Under the circumstances, the order providing for the personal service of the summons upon defendant’s attorney, followed by mailing the summons to defendant’s home and place of business, was appropriate. Hopkins, J. P., Damiani, Titone and Rabin, JJ., concur.

Cite This Page — Counsel Stack

Bluebook (online)

84 A.D.2d 811, 449 N.Y.S.2d 442, 1981 N.Y. App. Div. LEXIS 16022, Counsel Stack Legal Research, https://law.counselstack.com/opinion/ragland-v-ragland-nyappdiv-1981.