You are here: / / Service Upon Employee Did Not Confer Personal Jurisdiction Over Corpor...
,

Service Upon Employee Did Not Confer Personal Jurisdiction Over Corporation

The Second Department held that service upon an employee who was not an officer, director, managing agent, cashier, or an agent authorized to accept service, did not confer jurisdiction over a corporation, and the motion to dismiss for lack of personal jurisdiction should have been granted.  Fernandez v Town of Babylon …, Omni Recycling of Babylon, Inc., 2012-05513, Index No 4102/01, 2nd Dept. 3-6-13

 

You might also like
DEFENDANT BUS DRIVER, WHO HAD THE RIGHT OF WAY, FAILED TO DEMONSTRATE FREEDOM FROM COMPARATIVE FAULT IN AN INTERSECTION ACCIDENT, SUMMARY JUDGMENT PROPERLY DENIED.
THE BANK’S FAILURE TO COMPLY WITH THE NOTICE-OF-FORECLOSURE REQUIREMENTS OF RPAPL 1304 CAN BE RAISED AT ANY TIME BEFORE THE JUDGMENT OF FORECLOSURE AND SALE (SECOND DEPT).
THE ARBITRATION AWARD WAS “IRRATIONAL;” THE CORRECTIONS OFFICERS WERE TREATED ONLY ON THE DAY OF THEIR INJURIES, LOST NO WORK AND HAD NO OUT-OF-POCKET EXPENSES; THEY WERE NOT ENTITLED TO MEDICAL BENEFITS PURSUANT TO THE COLLECTIVE BARGAINING AGREEMENT (CBA) AND THE GENERAL MUNICIPAL LAW (SECOND DEPT). ​
DEFENDANT’S MOTION TO WITHDRAW HIS PLEA WAS MADE PURSUANT TO CPL 220.60, NOT CPL 330.30; THEREFORE THE “OUTSIDE THE RECORD” EVIDENCE SUBMITTED IN SUPPORT OF THE MOTION SHOULD HAVE BEEN CONSIDERED; MATTER REMITTED (SECOND DEPT). ​
FAMILY COURT SHOULD AMEND ITS ORDER GRANTING A SPECIAL IMMIGRANT JUVENILE STATUS (SIJS) PETITION TO ADDRESS THE REASONS FOR THE REVOCATION OF THE PETITION BY THE US CITIZENSHIP AND IMMIGRATION SERVICES (SECOND DEPT).
THE POINT AT WHICH LEAVE OF COURT AND THE STIPULATION OF ALL PARTIES IS REQUIRED TO DISCONTINUE A FORECLOSURE ACTION IS THE RETURN DATE FOR THE MOTION TO CONFIRM THE REFEREE’S REPORT (SECOND DEPT).
Defendants Not Liable for Assault by a Contractor-Security Guard—No Showing Defendants Were Aware of Security Guard’s Propensity for Violence—Security Guard’s Actions Were Outside the Scope of Employment
THE ACTION TO ENFORCE THE POSTNUPTIAL AGREEMENT WAS GOVERNED BY THE THREE-YEAR STATUTE OF LIMITATIONS IN THE DOMESTIC RELATIONS LAW, NOT THE SIX-YEAR CONTRACT STATUTE OF LIMITATIONS IN CPLR 213; THEREFORE THE ACTION WAS TIME-BARRED (SECOND DEPT). ​

Categories

Sign Up for the Mailing List to Be Notified When the Site Is Updated.

  • This field is for validation purposes and should be left unchanged.

Copyright © 2026 New York Appellate Digest, Inc.
Site by CurlyHost | Privacy Policy

Court Has No Authority to Grant Application to File Late Notice of Claim After... Law Office Failure Justified Vacation of Default Judgment