Legal Opinion

Fillyow v. County of Westchester

New York Supreme Court

Decided October 5, 1961PublishedCited by 6 opinions

1Opinion of the CourtJames D. Hopkins, J.

The defendant County of Westchester, appearing specially, moves to vacate the service of the summons in the action. It is asserted in the moving papers, and not controverted, that service was made on the County Attorney, and on an employee in the office of the Clerk of the Board of Supervisors. It is asserted in the opposing papers, and not controverted, that an admission of service was stamped on the summons by the employee.

Subdivision 3 of section 228 of the Civil Practice Act provides that the summons in an action against a county must be served on the County Attorney, and, in addition, on…

2Cases cited5 opinions

  1. Munroe v. BoothNew York Court of Appeals · 1953
  2. Avery v. O'DwyerAppellate Division of the Supreme Court of the State of New York · 1952
  3. Avery v. O'DwyerNew York Court of Appeals · 1953
  4. Avery v. O'DwyerNew York Supreme Court · 1952
  5. Merkle v. County of NassauNew York Supreme Court · 1950

3Cited by6 opinions

  1. Sarkissian v. Chicago Board of EducationIllinois Supreme Court · 2002
  2. Meadowdale Neighborhood Committee v. City of EdmondsCourt of Appeals of Washington · 1980
  3. Miller v. Town of CiceroAppellate Court of Illinois · 1992
  4. Wyatt v. County of PutnamAppellate Division of the Supreme Court of the State of New York · 1980
  5. Sarkissian v. Chicago Board of EducationIllinois Supreme Court · 2002

1 more not listed; retrieve them via the Exa API.

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

Powered by the Exa API