Uptown Realty Unlimited LLC v. Lovelace

Appellate Division of the Supreme Court of New York

Uptown Realty Unlimited LLC v. Lovelace

77 A.D.3d 499, 908 N.Y.S.2d 585

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

DecidedOctober 19, 2010

StatusPublished

This text of 77 A.D.3d 499 (Uptown Realty Unlimited LLC v. Lovelace) 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

Uptown Realty Unlimited LLC v. Lovelace, 77 A.D.3d 499, 908 N.Y.S.2d 585 (N.Y. Ct. App. 2010).

Pincite

Opinion

Order, Supreme Court, New York County (Joan A. Madden, J), entered March 30, 2009, which denied plaintiffs motion for a default judgment and sua sponte dismissed the complaint without prejudice to the commencement of a new action, unanimously affirmed, without costs.

A stipulation between the parties in another action provided that defendant’s counsel in that action must be served with a summons and complaint seeking rent arrears. The motion court properly found that the stipulation was not applicable to this action; it did not waive the requirement of service on defendant and plaintiff was unable to prove service of the instant summons and complaint on defendant. The pro se defendant’s opposition to the motion is construed as an application to dismiss the complaint. Concur—Mazzarelli, J.P., Sweeny, Abdus-Salaam and Román, JJ.

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

Order, Supreme Court, New York County (Joan A. Madden, J), entered March 30, 2009, which denied plaintiffs motion for a default judgment and sua sponte dismissed the complaint without prejudice to the commencement of a new action, unanimously affirmed, without costs.

A stipulation between the parties in another action provided that defendant’s counsel in that action must be served with a summons and complaint seeking rent arrears. The motion court properly found that the stipulation was not applicable to this action; it did not waive the requirement of service on defendant and plaintiff was unable to prove service of the instant summons and complaint on defendant. The pro se defendant’s opposition to the motion is construed as an application to dismiss the complaint. Concur—Mazzarelli, J.P., Sweeny, Abdus-Salaam and Román, JJ.

Cite This Page — Counsel Stack

Bluebook (online)

77 A.D.3d 499, 908 N.Y.S.2d 585, Counsel Stack Legal Research, https://law.counselstack.com/opinion/uptown-realty-unlimited-llc-v-lovelace-nyappdiv-2010.