Shenko Electric, Inc. v. Hartnett
This text of 161 A.D.2d 1212 (Shenko Electric, Inc. v. Hartnett) 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.
Opinion
Motion to dismiss granted. Memo[1213]*1213randum: Petitioner failed to effect personal service of the petition and notice of petition upon respondent. The mailing of process pursuant to CPLR 312-a does not effect personal service. Service is complete only when the acknowledgment of receipt in the form prescribed by CPLR 312-a (d) is mailed or returned to the sender (CPLR 312-a [b]). If the acknowledgment of receipt is not mailed or returned to the sender, the sender is required to effect personal service in another manner (CPLR 312-a [e], [f]; mem of Off of Ct Admin in support of L 1989, ch 274, 1989 McKinney’s Session Laws of NY, at 2563). Present—Boomer, J. P., Green, Pine, Balio and Lawton, JJ.
Free access — add to your briefcase to read the full text and ask questions with AI
Related
Cite This Page — Counsel Stack
161 A.D.2d 1212, 558 N.Y.S.2d 859, Counsel Stack Legal Research, https://law.counselstack.com/opinion/shenko-electric-inc-v-hartnett-nyappdiv-1990.