Rodriguez v. Hidalgo

Appellate Division of the Supreme Court of New York

Rodriguez v. Hidalgo

294 A.D.2d 114, 740 N.Y.S.2d 871, 2002 N.Y. App. Div. LEXIS 4332

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

DecidedMay 2, 2002

StatusPublished

This text of 294 A.D.2d 114 (Rodriguez v. Hidalgo) 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

Rodriguez v. Hidalgo, 294 A.D.2d 114, 740 N.Y.S.2d 871, 2002 N.Y. App. Div. LEXIS 4332 (N.Y. Ct. App. 2002).

Pincite

Opinion

—Order, Supreme Court, Bronx County (Joseph Giamboi, J.), entered March 27, 2001, which, to the extent appealed from, denied defendant Gennarino Padula’s motion to dismiss the complaint as against him for lack of jurisdiction, unanimously affirmed, without costs.

The jurisdictional affirmative defense contained in defendant Padula’s answer was premised upon plaintiffs’ failure to comply with CPLR article 3 “relative to the filing of the summons, verified complaint and proof of service.” His motion to dismiss for lack of jurisdiction, on the other hand, asserted that personal jurisdiction had not been obtained over him in accordance with New York’s long-arm statute. Inasmuch as the ground for Padula’s motion could not have been fairly gathered from his pleading, it was waived (see, Wiesener v Avis Rent-A-Car, 182 AD2d 372). Concur—Andrias, J.P., Sullivan, Wallach, Rubin and Gonzalez, JJ.

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

—Order, Supreme Court, Bronx County (Joseph Giamboi, J.), entered March 27, 2001, which, to the extent appealed from, denied defendant Gennarino Padula’s motion to dismiss the complaint as against him for lack of jurisdiction, unanimously affirmed, without costs.

The jurisdictional affirmative defense contained in defendant Padula’s answer was premised upon plaintiffs’ failure to comply with CPLR article 3 “relative to the filing of the summons, verified complaint and proof of service.” His motion to dismiss for lack of jurisdiction, on the other hand, asserted that personal jurisdiction had not been obtained over him in accordance with New York’s long-arm statute. Inasmuch as the ground for Padula’s motion could not have been fairly gathered from his pleading, it was waived (see, Wiesener v Avis Rent-A-Car, 182 AD2d 372). Concur—Andrias, J.P., Sullivan, Wallach, Rubin and Gonzalez, JJ.

Cite This Page — Counsel Stack

Bluebook (online)

294 A.D.2d 114, 740 N.Y.S.2d 871, 2002 N.Y. App. Div. LEXIS 4332, Counsel Stack Legal Research, https://law.counselstack.com/opinion/rodriguez-v-hidalgo-nyappdiv-2002.

Opinion

Related

Cite This Page — Counsel Stack