Legal Opinion

Schulte Real Estate Co. v. Pirkig

New York Supreme Court

Decided March 7, 1948PublishedCited by 3 opinions

1Opinion of the CourtMiller, J.

At the time the order for substituted service was made in 1933, section 231 of the Civil Practice Act provided that an order for substituted service “must direct” the mailing of the summons “ by depositing in a postoEce * * * addressed to the defendant * * * at ¡his place of residence ”. The order sought to be vacated improperly authorized deposit of the summons in a “ U. S. POST OFFICE box ”, and the aEdavit of service states that the copy of the summons was deposited in such a box. Deposit in a post-oEce box is not equivalent to deposit in a post ofice (Korn v. Lipman, 201 N. Y. 404, 407,…

2Cases cited1 opinion

  1. Korn v. . LipmanNew York Court of Appeals · 1911

3Cited by3 opinions

  1. Handel v. BrodskyCity of New York Municipal Court · 1950
  2. Mandel v. BrodskyAppellate Terms of the Supreme Court of New York · 1951
  3. PSALIDASBoard of Immigration Appeals · 1965

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

Powered by the Exa API