Legal Opinion
In re Skotak
Appellate Division of the Supreme Court of the State of New York
Decided March 9, 1955PublishedCited by 1 opinion
1Per curiam
The motion made on special appearance in this proceeding under section 696 of the Civil Practice Act, to vacate the service of petition and notice of motion should have been granted. The Charles S. Jacobowitz Company, a domestic corporation, was not served. Service of the papers upon its attorney, who filed with the Sheriff a notice of claim of title, was not service upon the company. (Civ. Prac. Act, § 228; Rules Civ. Prac., rule 21.) The attorney was not a person who could receive service of process to commence a special proceeding, and the filing by the attorney, on behalf of the…
2Cases cited5 opinions
- Dunn v. SeidenschwarzNew York Supreme Court · 1939
- Edwards v. Walker, New York County Courts1937
- Isabelle Properties, Inc. v. EdelmanCity of New York Municipal Court · 1937
- Long Island Tinsmith Supply Corp. v. John H. Ramberg & Son, Inc.City of New York Municipal Court · 1939
- N. B. I. Corp. v. Keller, New York County Courts1940