Schenkman v. Schenkman

284 A.D. 1068, 137 N.Y.S.2d 628, 1954 N.Y. App. Div. LEXIS 4594
Appellate Division of the Supreme Court of the State of New York·Decided December 31, 1954·Published·Cited by 5 cases

Opinion

In an action for separation, defendant appeals from an order denying his motion to vacate service of the summons and complaint. After a hearing, Special Term held that (1) defendant was served with process; (2) defendant had possession of. the summons and complaint, had knowledge that he was a named defendant in the action, but induced the process server to accept its [1069]*1069return on the fraudulent representation that he was not the defendant; (3) these facts amounted to delivering the process and leaving it with defendant sufficient to constitute effective service. Order affirmed, with $10 costs and disbursements. Ho opinion. Holán, P. J., Wenzel, MacCrate, Schmidt and Beldoek, JJ., concur. [206 Misc. 660.]

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

Schenkman v. Schenkman, 284 A.D. 1068, 137 N.Y.S.2d 628, 1954 N.Y. App. Div. LEXIS 4594 (N.Y. Ct. App. 1954).

284 A.D. 1068 (Schenkman v. Schenkman) — published by Counsel Stack Legal Research, free access to 12M+ legal documents.

Related

Haak v. Town of Wheatland
86 A.D.2d 961 (Appellate Division of the Supreme Court of New York, 1982)
O'Heaney v. O'Heaney
80 A.D.2d 46 (Appellate Division of the Supreme Court of New York, 1981)
Gardner v. Gardner
81 Misc. 2d 734 (NYC Family Court, 1975)
Kenworthy v. Zandt
71 Misc. 2d 950 (Civil Court of the City of New York, 1972)
Chernick v. Rodriguez
2 Misc. 2d 891 (New York Supreme Court, 1956)