Legal Opinion

Pacek v. Ferrar

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

Decided October 4, 1939PublishedCited by 5 opinions

1Opinion of the Court

— Order affirmed, with ten dollars costs and disbursements. Memorandum: No personal service of the summons and complaint in the foreclosure action was made on the respondent Ferrar. The entry of a deficiency judgment against him, therefore, was absolutely void for lack of jurisdiction of his person. The Supreme Court has inherent power to vacate a judgment so entered. (Civ. Prac. Act, § 1083; Matter of Rudgers, 250 App. Div. 359; Matter of Battalico v. Knickebocker Fireproofing Co., Id. 258; motion for leave to appeal denied, 274 N. Y. 641; Kamp v. Kamp, 59 id. 212.) Nor has Ferrar appeared…

2Cases cited2 opinions

  1. Noble v. CrandallNew York Supreme Court · 1888
  2. In re the Summary Proceedings for Removal of Persons in Possession of Premises Alleged to Be Owned by RudgersAppellate Division of the Supreme Court of the State of New York · 1937

3Cited by5 opinions

  1. Wheelock v. WheelockAppellate Division of the Supreme Court of the State of New York · 1956
  2. Langer v. WiehlNew York Supreme Court · 1955
  3. Marco v. SachsNew York Supreme Court · 1960
  4. Cobb v. SelmonskyNew York Supreme Court · 1962
  5. Detzel v. DetzelNew York Supreme Court · 1959

Showing a preview — retrieve the full document via the Exa API.

Powered by the Exa API