Randazzo v. Neufeld

Appellate Division of the Supreme Court of New York

Randazzo v. Neufeld

277 A.D.2d 387, 716 N.Y.S.2d 593, 2000 N.Y. App. Div. LEXIS 12185

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

DecidedNovember 20, 2000

StatusPublished

Cited by1 cases

This text of 277 A.D.2d 387 (Randazzo v. Neufeld) 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

Randazzo v. Neufeld, 277 A.D.2d 387, 716 N.Y.S.2d 593, 2000 N.Y. App. Div. LEXIS 12185 (N.Y. Ct. App. 2000).

Pincite

Opinion

—In a [388]*388proceeding pursuant to CPLR article 78 to review a determination of the respondent Zoning Board of Appeals of the Village of Mamaroneck, dated June 8, 1999, which, after a hearing, granted the respondent Domenico Sagliocco’s application for three area variances, the appeal is from a judgment of the Supreme Court, Westchester County (Leavitt, J.), entered November 18, 1999, which dismissed the petition on the ground that the petitioners had not obtained jurisdiction over the respondents.

Ordered that the judgment is affirmed, with costs.

The Supreme Court properly concluded that the service in this case was ineffective to confer jurisdiction over the respondents since the petitioners did not serve a person designated in CPLR 312 (see, Matter of J & G Cent. Auto Collision v Zoning Bd. of Appeals, 210 AD2d 407; Matter of Heinisch v Goehringer, 121 AD2d 721). O’Brien, J. P., Thompson, S. Miller and Feuerstein, JJ., concur.

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

—In a [388]*388proceeding pursuant to CPLR article 78 to review a determination of the respondent Zoning Board of Appeals of the Village of Mamaroneck, dated June 8, 1999, which, after a hearing, granted the respondent Domenico Sagliocco’s application for three area variances, the appeal is from a judgment of the Supreme Court, Westchester County (Leavitt, J.), entered November 18, 1999, which dismissed the petition on the ground that the petitioners had not obtained jurisdiction over the respondents.

Ordered that the judgment is affirmed, with costs.

The Supreme Court properly concluded that the service in this case was ineffective to confer jurisdiction over the respondents since the petitioners did not serve a person designated in CPLR 312 (see, Matter of J & G Cent. Auto Collision v Zoning Bd. of Appeals, 210 AD2d 407; Matter of Heinisch v Goehringer, 121 AD2d 721). O’Brien, J. P., Thompson, S. Miller and Feuerstein, JJ., concur.

Cite This Page — Counsel Stack

Bluebook (online)

277 A.D.2d 387, 716 N.Y.S.2d 593, 2000 N.Y. App. Div. LEXIS 12185, Counsel Stack Legal Research, https://law.counselstack.com/opinion/randazzo-v-neufeld-nyappdiv-2000.

Opinion

Related

Cite This Page — Counsel Stack