Roth v. State University

Appellate Division of the Supreme Court of New York

Roth v. State University

61 A.D.3d 476, 876 N.Y.S.2d 403

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

DecidedApril 14, 2009

StatusPublished

Cited by4 cases

This text of 61 A.D.3d 476 (Roth v. State University) 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

Roth v. State University, 61 A.D.3d 476, 876 N.Y.S.2d 403 (N.Y. Ct. App. 2009).

Pincite

Opinion

Order, Supreme Court, New York County (Leland G. DeGrasse, J.), entered November 30, 2007, which granted defendants’ motions to dismiss the complaint for lack of personal jurisdiction, unanimously affirmed, without costs.

The summons described the nature of this action as “violations of federal, New York State, and New York City human rights laws, including but not limited to” various named statutes. Since numerous potential causes of action may be brought under these statutes, the summons left defendants to guess the precise claims against them (see Scaringi v Broome Realty Corp., 191 AD2d 223 [1993]). In thus failing to comply with the notice requirements of CPLR 305 (b), the summons was jurisdictionally defective (Wells v Mount Sinai Hosp. & Med. Ctr., 196 AD2d 749 [1993]), and as such could not be amended (see Alexander, Practice Commentaries, McKinney’s [477]*477Cons Laws of NY, Book 7B, CPLR C305:4). Concur—Tom, J.E, Andrias, Buckley and Moskowitz, JJ.

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

Order, Supreme Court, New York County (Leland G. DeGrasse, J.), entered November 30, 2007, which granted defendants’ motions to dismiss the complaint for lack of personal jurisdiction, unanimously affirmed, without costs.

The summons described the nature of this action as “violations of federal, New York State, and New York City human rights laws, including but not limited to” various named statutes. Since numerous potential causes of action may be brought under these statutes, the summons left defendants to guess the precise claims against them (see Scaringi v Broome Realty Corp., 191 AD2d 223 [1993]). In thus failing to comply with the notice requirements of CPLR 305 (b), the summons was jurisdictionally defective (Wells v Mount Sinai Hosp. & Med. Ctr., 196 AD2d 749 [1993]), and as such could not be amended (see Alexander, Practice Commentaries, McKinney’s [477]*477Cons Laws of NY, Book 7B, CPLR C305:4). Concur—Tom, J.E, Andrias, Buckley and Moskowitz, JJ.

Cite This Page — Counsel Stack

Bluebook (online)

61 A.D.3d 476, 876 N.Y.S.2d 403, Counsel Stack Legal Research, https://law.counselstack.com/opinion/roth-v-state-university-nyappdiv-2009.

Opinion

Related

Cite This Page — Counsel Stack