Richter v. Pisani

Appellate Division of the Supreme Court of New York

Richter v. Pisani

191 A.D.2d 419, 596 N.Y.S.2d 694, 1993 N.Y. App. Div. LEXIS 1806

Appellate Division of the Supreme Court of the State of New York·Decided March 1, 1993·Published

Opinion

—In an action to recover damages for personal injuries, the plaintiff appeals, as limited by his brief, from so much of a judgment of the Supreme Court, Suffolk County (Cannavo, J.), entered March 28, 1991, as, upon granting the defendant’s motion to dismiss the complaint on the ground of lack of personal jurisdiction, dismissed the complaint. The plaintiff’s notice of appeal from the order dated January 28, 1991, is deemed a premature notice of appeal from the judgment (CPLR 5520 [c]).

Ordered that the judgment is reversed insofar as appealed from, the order is vacated, with costs, and the matter is remitted to the Supreme Court, Suffolk County, for a hearing on the issue of whether personal jurisdiction was properly obtained over the defendant.

The court was confronted with conflicting affidavits raising questions of fact which should have been resolved after a hearing (see, Steiner v Steiner, 81 AD2d 725). Bracken, J. P., Lawrence, Miller, Copertino and Santucci, 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, as limited by his brief, from so much of a judgment of the Supreme Court, Suffolk County (Cannavo, J.), entered March 28, 1991, as, upon granting the defendant’s motion to dismiss the complaint on the ground of lack of personal jurisdiction, dismissed the complaint. The plaintiff’s notice of appeal from the order dated January 28, 1991, is deemed a premature notice of appeal from the judgment (CPLR 5520 [c]).

Ordered that the judgment is reversed insofar as appealed from, the order is vacated, with costs, and the matter is remitted to the Supreme Court, Suffolk County, for a hearing on the issue of whether personal jurisdiction was properly obtained over the defendant.

The court was confronted with conflicting affidavits raising questions of fact which should have been resolved after a hearing (see, Steiner v Steiner, 81 AD2d 725). Bracken, J. P., Lawrence, Miller, Copertino and Santucci, JJ., concur.

Richter v. Pisani, 191 A.D.2d 419, 596 N.Y.S.2d 694, 1993 N.Y. App. Div. LEXIS 1806 (N.Y. Ct. App. 1993).

Pincite

191 A.D.2d 419 (Richter v. Pisani) — published by Counsel Stack Legal Research, free access to 12M+ legal documents.

Opinion

Related