Schoonmaker v. Ford Motor Co.

Appellate Division of the Supreme Court of New York

Schoonmaker v. Ford Motor Co.

79 A.D.2d 1067, 435 N.Y.S.2d 393, 1981 N.Y. App. Div. LEXIS 9991

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

DecidedJanuary 22, 1981

StatusPublished

Cited by1 cases

This text of 79 A.D.2d 1067 (Schoonmaker v. Ford Motor Co.) 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

Schoonmaker v. Ford Motor Co., 79 A.D.2d 1067, 435 N.Y.S.2d 393, 1981 N.Y. App. Div. LEXIS 9991 (N.Y. Ct. App. 1981).

Pincite

Opinion

Appeal from an order of the Supreme Court at Special Term, entered September 14, 1979 in Ulster County, which denied defendant’s motion to quash service of process and dismiss the action on the ground that personal jurisdiction over the defendant was not obtained. The summons stated that the object of the action was wrongful death, conscious pain and suffering and loss of services. It also stated that plaintiff sought monetary damages in the amount of $10,000,000. Neither the complaint nor notice was served with the summons. The defendant served the plaintiff with a notice of appearance and a demand for a complaint on March 30, 1979. Plaintiff served the complaint on April 19, 1979. Defendant brought on a motion to dismiss the complaint pursuant to CPLR 3211 and to quash the service of process because the plaintiff failed to serve the required statutory notice with the summons. The defendant also argued that since the summons contained no notice, it was jurisdictionally defective and, therefore, the court did not obtain personal jurisdiction over the defendant. Special Term denied defendant’s motion because the defendant, by serving a notice of appearance, had formally appeared in the action. Order affirmed, with costs (see Everitt v Everitt, 4 NY2d 13, 17; Bal v Court Employment Project, 73 AD2d 69; cf. Competello v Giordano, 51 NY2d 904). Sweeney, J. P., Kane, Main, Mikoll and Herlihy, JJ., concur. [99 Misc 2d 1095.]

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

Appeal from an order of the Supreme Court at Special Term, entered September 14, 1979 in Ulster County, which denied defendant’s motion to quash service of process and dismiss the action on the ground that personal jurisdiction over the defendant was not obtained. The summons stated that the object of the action was wrongful death, conscious pain and suffering and loss of services. It also stated that plaintiff sought monetary damages in the amount of $10,000,000. Neither the complaint nor notice was served with the summons. The defendant served the plaintiff with a notice of appearance and a demand for a complaint on March 30, 1979. Plaintiff served the complaint on April 19, 1979. Defendant brought on a motion to dismiss the complaint pursuant to CPLR 3211 and to quash the service of process because the plaintiff failed to serve the required statutory notice with the summons. The defendant also argued that since the summons contained no notice, it was jurisdictionally defective and, therefore, the court did not obtain personal jurisdiction over the defendant. Special Term denied defendant’s motion because the defendant, by serving a notice of appearance, had formally appeared in the action. Order affirmed, with costs (see Everitt v Everitt, 4 NY2d 13, 17; Bal v Court Employment Project, 73 AD2d 69; cf. Competello v Giordano, 51 NY2d 904). Sweeney, J. P., Kane, Main, Mikoll and Herlihy, JJ., concur. [99 Misc 2d 1095.]

Cite This Page — Counsel Stack

Bluebook (online)

79 A.D.2d 1067, 435 N.Y.S.2d 393, 1981 N.Y. App. Div. LEXIS 9991, Counsel Stack Legal Research, https://law.counselstack.com/opinion/schoonmaker-v-ford-motor-co-nyappdiv-1981.

Opinion

Related

Cite This Page — Counsel Stack