Legal Opinion

Holtzman v. KTB Athletics SB TM

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

Decided January 15, 2014PublishedCited by 3 opinions

1Opinion of the Court

Those branches of the defendant’s motion which were pursuant to CPLR 5015 (a) (4) to vacate an order dated October 4, 2012, entered upon its default in answering the complaint, and pursuant to CPLR 3211 (a) (8) to dismiss the complaint for lack of jurisdiction, should have been granted. The defendant demonstrated that it was not a jural entity amenable to suit and, in any event, that service of the complaint was defective (see Pearson v 1296 Pac. St. Assoc., Inc., 67 AD3d 659 [2009]; Sheldon v Kimberly-Clark Corp., 111 AD2d 912 [1985]; Flint Cr. Campground v Cator, 29 Misc 3d 1216[A], 2010 NY…

2Cases cited2 opinions

  1. Sheldon v. Kimberly-Clark Corp.Appellate Division of the Supreme Court of the State of New York · 1985
  2. Pearson v. 1296 Pacific Street Associates, Inc.Appellate Division of the Supreme Court of the State of New York · 2009

3Cited by3 opinions

  1. Honeyman v. Curiosity Works, Inc.Appellate Division of the Supreme Court of the State of New York · 2014
  2. Ciafone v. Queens Center for Rehabilitation & Residential HealthcareAppellate Division of the Supreme Court of the State of New York · 2015
  3. Chestnut v. United Methodist ChurchAppellate Division of the Supreme Court of the State of New York · 2024

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

Powered by the Exa API