From Casetext: Smarter Legal Research

Jefferson Heights Quarry v. Fort Pike Assoc

Appellate Division of the Supreme Court of New York, Fourth Department
Sep 30, 1994
207 A.D.2d 984 (N.Y. App. Div. 1994)

Opinion

September 30, 1994

Appeal from the Supreme Court, Jefferson County, Gilbert, J.

Present — Pine, J.P., Lawton, Fallon, Doerr and Davis, JJ.


Order unanimously affirmed with costs. Memorandum: Supreme Court denied the motion by defendant Harmer-Hill General Contractors, Inc. (Harmer-Hill) to vacate a judgment for lack of jurisdiction pursuant to CPLR 5015 (a) (4). That judgment was entered following a successful appeal by plaintiff to this Court (see, Jefferson Hgts. Quarry v. Fort Pike Assocs., 191 A.D.2d 972, lv denied 82 N.Y.2d 658). The court erred in concluding that it lacked jurisdiction over the motion to vacate pursuant to CPLR 5015 (a). Indeed, in Matter of McKenna v. County of Nassau ( 61 N.Y.2d 739, 741-742), the Court of Appeals held that Special Term abused its discretion in reopening its judgment to correct an alleged error of law that could have been raised on prior appeals. The Court of Appeals did not suggest that Special Term lacked jurisdiction (see also, Pjetri v. New York City Health Hosps. Corp., 169 A.D.2d 100, 103-104, lv dismissed 79 N.Y.2d 915; McMahon v. City of New York, 105 A.D.2d 101, 104; Whitney v Lyric-Rochester Corp., 246 App. Div. 896).

Although the court should have decided the motion on the merits, we shall do so in the interest of judicial economy. We conclude that plaintiff acquired jurisdiction over Harmer-Hill pursuant to CPLR 312-a upon receipt of attorney Patricia Driscoll's acknowledgement of receipt of summons and complaint on behalf of Harmer-Hill. In its brief, Harmer-Hill abandoned its position that it had received by mail only the blank acknowledgement of service but not the summons and complaint. It stated that plaintiff mailed the summons, complaint and acknowledgement to it, and that it forwarded those documents to Driscoll. Harmer-Hill's reliance on Broman v. Stern ( 172 A.D.2d 475) is misplaced because the summons and complaint in that case were mailed to the attorney for the party to be served (cf., CPLR 312-a [a]). We reject the argument that plaintiff is entitled to sanctions.


Summaries of

Jefferson Heights Quarry v. Fort Pike Assoc

Appellate Division of the Supreme Court of New York, Fourth Department
Sep 30, 1994
207 A.D.2d 984 (N.Y. App. Div. 1994)
Case details for

Jefferson Heights Quarry v. Fort Pike Assoc

Case Details

Full title:JEFFERSON HEIGHTS QUARRY, INC., Respondent, v. FORT PIKE ASSOCIATES et…

Court:Appellate Division of the Supreme Court of New York, Fourth Department

Date published: Sep 30, 1994

Citations

207 A.D.2d 984 (N.Y. App. Div. 1994)
616 N.Y.S.2d 839

Citing Cases

Williams v. Connell

Consistent with that plain language, every authority interpreting this provision has determined that service…

Moneypaper v. H R Litho Sales Ser.

Under New York law, therefore, it appears that the New York court has personal jurisdiction over a defendant…