Learn About the Law
Get help with your legal needs
FindLaw’s Learn About the Law features thousands of informational articles to help you understand your options. And if you’re ready to hire an attorney, find one in your area who can help.
IN RE: Arbitration, etc., AMERICAN TRANSIT INSURANCE COMPANY, Petitioner, v. Martin S. CARILLO, Respondent-Respondent, Saka Misa, et al., Additional Respondents, Empire Insurance Company, Additional Respondent-Appellant.
Order, Supreme Court, New York County (Harold Tompkins, J.), entered February 5, 2002, which denied additional respondent Empire Insurance Company's motion to vacate a judgment of the Special Referee granting a permanent stay of arbitration, and to dismiss the proceeding as against it, unanimously reversed, on the law and the facts, without costs, the motion granted and the judgment vacated.
Jurisdiction over a non-party to a proceeding to stay arbitration cannot be obtained by the service upon it of the notice of petition and petition by either ordinary mail or certified mail, whether or not such service is authorized by a court order (Matter of Liberty Mut. Ins. [Markovich-Eagle Fuel Transp.-AIU Ins. Co.], 214 A.D.2d 734, 625 N.Y.S.2d 619; Matter of Allstate Ins. Co. v. Perez, 157 A.D.2d 521, 549 N.Y.S.2d 713). Once added to the proceeding by the court as an additional respondent, proper service could only have been effectuated on Empire Insurance Company (Empire) by court-ordered service of a supplemental notice of petition, and a supplemental petition, pursuant to CPLR 1003 (Matter of Liberty Mut. Ins. Co. v. Bohl, 262 A.D.2d 645, 646, 694 N.Y.S.2d 72; Matter of Allcity Ins. Co. [Guy], 97 A.D.2d 374, 467 N.Y.S.2d 579).
In this matter, despite the fact that Empire was added as an additional respondent pursuant to two court orders, proper service was never effected pursuant to CPLR 1003 and, therefore, jurisdiction was never obtained. Accordingly, the judgment is a nullity.
Thank you for your feedback!
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.
Decided: July 24, 2003
Court: Supreme Court, Appellate Division, First Department, New York.
Search our directory by legal issue
Enter information in one or both fields (Required)
Harness the power of our directory with your own profile. Select the button below to sign up.
Learn more about FindLaw’s newsletters, including our terms of use and privacy policy.
Get help with your legal needs
FindLaw’s Learn About the Law features thousands of informational articles to help you understand your options. And if you’re ready to hire an attorney, find one in your area who can help.
Search our directory by legal issue
Enter information in one or both fields (Required)