Tomaszewski v. Cleveland

New York Court of Appeals

Tomaszewski v. Cleveland

432 N.E.2d 601, 55 N.Y.2d 852, 447 N.Y.S.2d 707, 1982 N.Y. LEXIS 3062

New York Court of Appeals·Decided January 14, 1982·Published·Cited by 3 cases

Opinion

OPINION OF THE COURT

On summary consideration, order reversed, with costs, and the motion by defendant Martinez to dismiss the complaint denied. We disagree with the holding of the Appellate Division basing its decision as to defendant Martinez on the invalidity of the order and postattachment procedure, issues which have been waived by defendant’s failure to timely raise them. Defendant also waived her objections to quasi in rem jurisdiction by failing to allege this ground in her answer (see Gager v White, 53 NY2d 475, 489).

Concur: Chief Judge Cooke and Judges Jasen, Gabrielli, Jones, Wachtleé, Fuchsberg and Meyer.

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

OPINION OF THE COURT

On summary consideration, order reversed, with costs, and the motion by defendant Martinez to dismiss the complaint denied. We disagree with the holding of the Appellate Division basing its decision as to defendant Martinez on the invalidity of the order and postattachment procedure, issues which have been waived by defendant’s failure to timely raise them. Defendant also waived her objections to quasi in rem jurisdiction by failing to allege this ground in her answer (see Gager v White, 53 NY2d 475, 489).

Concur: Chief Judge Cooke and Judges Jasen, Gabrielli, Jones, Wachtleé, Fuchsberg and Meyer.

Tomaszewski v. Cleveland, 432 N.E.2d 601, 55 N.Y.2d 852, 447 N.Y.S.2d 707, 1982 N.Y. LEXIS 3062 (N.Y. 1982).

Pincite

432 N.E.2d 601 (Tomaszewski v. Cleveland) — published by Counsel Stack Legal Research, free access to 12M+ legal documents.

Opinion

Related