Three Village Central School District v. Wachtel

Appellate Division of the Supreme Court of New York

Three Village Central School District v. Wachtel

63 A.D.2d 980, 406 N.Y.S.2d 110, 1978 N.Y. App. Div. LEXIS 12049

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

DecidedJune 12, 1978

StatusPublished

This text of 63 A.D.2d 980 (Three Village Central School District v. Wachtel) 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

Three Village Central School District v. Wachtel, 63 A.D.2d 980, 406 N.Y.S.2d 110, 1978 N.Y. App. Div. LEXIS 12049 (N.Y. Ct. App. 1978).

Pincite

Opinion

In an action to recover property damage, defendant Eileen Wachtel appeals, as limited by her brief, from so much of an order of the Supreme Court, Suffolk County, dated October 21, 1977, as denied her cross motion to dismiss the complaint and cross complaint as against her. Order reversed insofar as appealed from, on the law and the facts, with $50 costs and disbursements payable by plaintiff-respondent, and cross motion granted. Plaintiff sought to effect service of process on Eileen Wachtel, an infant over the age of 14 years, by complying with CPLR 308 (subd 2) and CPLR 309. In our view plaintiff failed to meet the requirements of those statutes since no copy of the summons and complaint was mailed either to the infant or her parent. Hopkins, J. P., Martuscello, Damiani and Rabin, JJ., concur.

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

In an action to recover property damage, defendant Eileen Wachtel appeals, as limited by her brief, from so much of an order of the Supreme Court, Suffolk County, dated October 21, 1977, as denied her cross motion to dismiss the complaint and cross complaint as against her. Order reversed insofar as appealed from, on the law and the facts, with $50 costs and disbursements payable by plaintiff-respondent, and cross motion granted. Plaintiff sought to effect service of process on Eileen Wachtel, an infant over the age of 14 years, by complying with CPLR 308 (subd 2) and CPLR 309. In our view plaintiff failed to meet the requirements of those statutes since no copy of the summons and complaint was mailed either to the infant or her parent. Hopkins, J. P., Martuscello, Damiani and Rabin, JJ., concur.

Cite This Page — Counsel Stack

Bluebook (online)

63 A.D.2d 980, 406 N.Y.S.2d 110, 1978 N.Y. App. Div. LEXIS 12049, Counsel Stack Legal Research, https://law.counselstack.com/opinion/three-village-central-school-district-v-wachtel-nyappdiv-1978.