HARKNESS v. DOE (1999)

Supreme Court, Appellate Division, Fourth Department, New York.

Diana L. HARKNESS, Plaintiff-Appellant, et al., Plaintiff, v. David DOE, Defendant-Respondent. (Appeal No. 2)

Decided: May 07, 1999

PRESENT: DENMAN, P.J., GREEN, PINE, SCUDDER and BALIO, JJ.

Mark Nunn, Rochester, for plaintiff-appellant. Hilary Banker, Buffalo, for defendant-respondent.

Supreme Court erred in granting defendant's motion for summary judgment dismissing the complaint on the ground that the court lacked jurisdiction over defendant. Jurisdiction was obtained over defendant when plaintiffs completed service in accordance with the order directing the manner of service pursuant to CPLR 308(5) (see, Harkness v. Doe, 261 A.D.2d 846, 689 N.Y.S.2d 586).

The appeal by plaintiff Diana L. Harkness from that part of the order denying plaintiffs' cross motion for a stay is dismissed as moot (see, Matter of Saratoga Harness Racing v. Corbisiero, 216 A.D.2d 776, 777, 628 N.Y.S.2d 442, citing Matter of Hearst Corp. v. Clyne, 50 N.Y.2d 707, 714, 431 N.Y.S.2d 400, 409 N.E.2d 876).

Appeal from order and judgment insofar as it denied cross motion unanimously dismissed and order and judgment reversed on the law without costs, motion denied and complaint reinstated.

MEMORANDUM:

Was this helpful?

Why was this helpful?

Easy to understand

Solved my problem

Other

Why was this not helpful?

Missing the information I need

Too complicated / too many steps

Out of date

Other

Thank you for your feedback!

Trusted by Consumers. Recognized by AI.

As the largest network of trusted legal brands, we help firms build authority across the platforms consumers and AI systems rely on most. Our network helps attorneys strengthen visibility, credibility, and preference where legal decisions begin.

Explore the Network