Santoro v. Frusciante

Appellate Division of the Supreme Court of New York

Santoro v. Frusciante

254 A.D. 783, 4 N.Y.S.2d 741, 1938 N.Y. App. Div. LEXIS 7591

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

DecidedMay 27, 1938

StatusPublished

This text of 254 A.D. 783 (Santoro v. Frusciante) 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

Santoro v. Frusciante, 254 A.D. 783, 4 N.Y.S.2d 741, 1938 N.Y. App. Div. LEXIS 7591 (N.Y. Ct. App. 1938).

Pincite

Opinion

Order of the City Court of Yonkers denying defendant’s motion, made on a special appearance, to vacate the service of a summons on the ground of want of jurisdiction where it is conceded that neither the plaintiff nor the defendant resides in the city of Yonkers, reversed on the law, with ten dollars costs and disbursements, and the motion granted, with ten dollars costs. Paragraph (b), subdivision 3, section 2, of the Yonkers City Court Act (Laws of 1930, chap. 852) requires that either the plaintiff or the defendant be a resident of the city of Yonkers at the time of the commencement of the action. Here there is no general appearance such as was present in Battaly v. Cofin (236 App. Div. 807) and Meyer v. Chester View, Incorporated (-250 id. 863). Lazansky, P. J., Hagarty, Carswell, Davis and Taylor, JJ., concur.

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

Order of the City Court of Yonkers denying defendant’s motion, made on a special appearance, to vacate the service of a summons on the ground of want of jurisdiction where it is conceded that neither the plaintiff nor the defendant resides in the city of Yonkers, reversed on the law, with ten dollars costs and disbursements, and the motion granted, with ten dollars costs. Paragraph (b), subdivision 3, section 2, of the Yonkers City Court Act (Laws of 1930, chap. 852) requires that either the plaintiff or the defendant be a resident of the city of Yonkers at the time of the commencement of the action. Here there is no general appearance such as was present in Battaly v. Cofin (236 App. Div. 807) and Meyer v. Chester View, Incorporated (-250 id. 863). Lazansky, P. J., Hagarty, Carswell, Davis and Taylor, JJ., concur.

Cite This Page — Counsel Stack

Bluebook (online)

254 A.D. 783, 4 N.Y.S.2d 741, 1938 N.Y. App. Div. LEXIS 7591, Counsel Stack Legal Research, https://law.counselstack.com/opinion/santoro-v-frusciante-nyappdiv-1938.