Weidemann v. Keith

Appellate Division of the Supreme Court of New York

Weidemann v. Keith

127 A.D.2d 831, 512 N.Y.S.2d 224, 1987 N.Y. App. Div. LEXIS 43327

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

DecidedFebruary 23, 1987

StatusPublished

Cited by2 cases

This text of 127 A.D.2d 831 (Weidemann v. Keith) 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

Weidemann v. Keith, 127 A.D.2d 831, 512 N.Y.S.2d 224, 1987 N.Y. App. Div. LEXIS 43327 (N.Y. Ct. App. 1987).

Pincite

Opinion

In a negligence action to recover damages for personal injuries, the defendant Brodersen appeals from an order of the Supreme Court, Rockland County (Donovan, J.), dated August 21, 1985, which granted the plaintiff’s motion for leave to serve an amended complaint and denied his cross motion to dismiss the original complaint insofar as it is asserted against him for lack of personal jurisdictional.

Ordered that the order is reversed, on the law, with costs, the motion is denied, the cross motion is granted, and the action is dismissed insofar as it is against the appellant.

The plaintiff, who shared a residence with the appellant, was not a person of suitable age and discretion, within the meaning of CPLR 308 (2), to accept service of process on behalf of the appellant. Accordingly, service upon her of the summons with notice along with mail service was not sufficient to confer jurisdiction over the person of the appellant (see, Matter of Community School Dist. No. 13 v Goodman, 127 [832]*832AD2d 837). Mollen, P. J., Bracken, Lawrence and Sullivan, JJ., concur.

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

In a negligence action to recover damages for personal injuries, the defendant Brodersen appeals from an order of the Supreme Court, Rockland County (Donovan, J.), dated August 21, 1985, which granted the plaintiff’s motion for leave to serve an amended complaint and denied his cross motion to dismiss the original complaint insofar as it is asserted against him for lack of personal jurisdictional.

Ordered that the order is reversed, on the law, with costs, the motion is denied, the cross motion is granted, and the action is dismissed insofar as it is against the appellant.

The plaintiff, who shared a residence with the appellant, was not a person of suitable age and discretion, within the meaning of CPLR 308 (2), to accept service of process on behalf of the appellant. Accordingly, service upon her of the summons with notice along with mail service was not sufficient to confer jurisdiction over the person of the appellant (see, Matter of Community School Dist. No. 13 v Goodman, 127 [832]*832AD2d 837). Mollen, P. J., Bracken, Lawrence and Sullivan, JJ., concur.

Cite This Page — Counsel Stack

Bluebook (online)

127 A.D.2d 831, 512 N.Y.S.2d 224, 1987 N.Y. App. Div. LEXIS 43327, Counsel Stack Legal Research, https://law.counselstack.com/opinion/weidemann-v-keith-nyappdiv-1987.

Opinion

Related

Cite This Page — Counsel Stack