Schmitt v. Perales

Appellate Division of the Supreme Court of New York

Schmitt v. Perales

187 A.D.2d 1041, 593 N.Y.S.2d 486, 1992 N.Y. App. Div. LEXIS 14148

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

DecidedNovember 18, 1992

StatusPublished

Cited by2 cases

This text of 187 A.D.2d 1041 (Schmitt v. Perales) 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

Schmitt v. Perales, 187 A.D.2d 1041, 593 N.Y.S.2d 486, 1992 N.Y. App. Div. LEXIS 14148 (N.Y. Ct. App. 1992).

Pincite

Opinion

Petition unanimously dismissed without costs. Memorandum: Pursuant to CPLR 7804 (g), we consider respondents’ contention that the petition should be dismissed for lack of personal jurisdiction (see, Matter of Desmone v Blum, 99 AD2d 170; 8 Weinstein-Korn-Miller, NY Civ Prac ¶ 7804.09). Be[1042]*1042cause the notice of petition failed to set forth the time and place of the scheduled hearing on the petition, personal jurisdiction was not acquired over respondents and the petition should have been dismissed (see, Travis v New York State Dept. of Envtl. Conservation, 185 AD2d 714; Matter of RECYCLE v Lacatena, 163 AD2d 693, 694). (Article 78 Proceeding Transferred by Order of Supreme Court, Erie County, Mintz, J.) Present — Boomer, J. P., Pine, Lawton, Boehm and Davis, JJ.

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

Petition unanimously dismissed without costs. Memorandum: Pursuant to CPLR 7804 (g), we consider respondents’ contention that the petition should be dismissed for lack of personal jurisdiction (see, Matter of Desmone v Blum, 99 AD2d 170; 8 Weinstein-Korn-Miller, NY Civ Prac ¶ 7804.09). Be[1042]*1042cause the notice of petition failed to set forth the time and place of the scheduled hearing on the petition, personal jurisdiction was not acquired over respondents and the petition should have been dismissed (see, Travis v New York State Dept. of Envtl. Conservation, 185 AD2d 714; Matter of RECYCLE v Lacatena, 163 AD2d 693, 694). (Article 78 Proceeding Transferred by Order of Supreme Court, Erie County, Mintz, J.) Present — Boomer, J. P., Pine, Lawton, Boehm and Davis, JJ.

Cite This Page — Counsel Stack

Bluebook (online)

187 A.D.2d 1041, 593 N.Y.S.2d 486, 1992 N.Y. App. Div. LEXIS 14148, Counsel Stack Legal Research, https://law.counselstack.com/opinion/schmitt-v-perales-nyappdiv-1992.

Opinion

Related

Cite This Page — Counsel Stack