Root v. Root

New York Supreme Court

Root v. Root

43 Misc. 2d 337, 250 N.Y.S.2d 933, 1964 N.Y. Misc. LEXIS 1748

CourtNew York Supreme Court

DecidedMay 20, 1964

StatusPublished

Cited by1 cases

This text of 43 Misc. 2d 337 (Root v. Root) is published on Counsel Stack Legal Research, covering New York Supreme Court primary law. Counsel Stack provides free access to over 12 million legal documents including statutes, case law, regulations, and constitutions.

Bluebook

Root v. Root, 43 Misc. 2d 337, 250 N.Y.S.2d 933, 1964 N.Y. Misc. LEXIS 1748 (N.Y. Super. Ct. 1964).

Pincite

Opinion

John J. Dillon, J.

The sole issue to be determined is whether or not the provisions contained in subdivision 3 of 308 CPLB relating to substituted service of process are applicable to a matrimonial action. The language contained in section 232 of the Domestic Belations Law is derived from section 1167 of the former Civil Practice Act and it specifically provides that in a matrimonial action a defendant may be served either personally or by publication pursuant to an order. The statute does not allude to any other mode of service of process and the courts have construed this to mean that substituted service is not available in a matrimonial action (Purvis v. Purvis, 167 App. Div. 717; Weiss v. Weiss, 227 App. Div. 757).

Accordingly, the motion for judgment under paragraph 8 of subdivision (a) of 3211 CPLB on the ground that the court does not have jurisdiction of the person of the defendant is granted. The plaintiff’s motion for affirmative relief must fail for the reason hereinabove stated.

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

John J. Dillon, J.

The sole issue to be determined is whether or not the provisions contained in subdivision 3 of 308 CPLB relating to substituted service of process are applicable to a matrimonial action. The language contained in section 232 of the Domestic Belations Law is derived from section 1167 of the former Civil Practice Act and it specifically provides that in a matrimonial action a defendant may be served either personally or by publication pursuant to an order. The statute does not allude to any other mode of service of process and the courts have construed this to mean that substituted service is not available in a matrimonial action (Purvis v. Purvis, 167 App. Div. 717; Weiss v. Weiss, 227 App. Div. 757).

Accordingly, the motion for judgment under paragraph 8 of subdivision (a) of 3211 CPLB on the ground that the court does not have jurisdiction of the person of the defendant is granted. The plaintiff’s motion for affirmative relief must fail for the reason hereinabove stated.

Cite This Page — Counsel Stack

Bluebook (online)

43 Misc. 2d 337, 250 N.Y.S.2d 933, 1964 N.Y. Misc. LEXIS 1748, Counsel Stack Legal Research, https://law.counselstack.com/opinion/root-v-root-nysupct-1964.

Opinion

Related

Cite This Page — Counsel Stack