Carlson v. Carlson

Order reversed, without costs, and matter remitted to Chautauqua Special Term for proceedings in accordance with the memorandum. Memorandum: There were two questions presented to Special Term (1) whether Isabelle Brinsley Carlson was a domiciliary of New York State at the time of service' of the summons and complaint upon her in Pennsylvania; and, (2) whether service was properly made upon her, even though a nondomiciliary, under subdivision 1 of section 232 of the Civil Practice Act. The Special Term Justice took the position that it was not claimed that she was, at the time of service, or…