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: STAR BOXING, INC., respondent, v. DAIMLERCHRYSLER MOTORS CORP., appellant.
In a proceeding pursuant to CPLR article 75 to confirm an arbitration award, DaimlerChrysler Motors Corp. appeals from an order of the Supreme Court, Westchester County (Bellantoni, J.), entered March 25, 2004, which denied its motion to dismiss the proceeding, granted the petition, and confirmed the arbitration award.
ORDERED that the order is reversed, on the law, with costs, the motion is granted, the petition is denied, and the proceeding is dismissed.
Pursuant to CPLR 7502, “[a] special proceeding shall be used to bring before a court the first application arising out of an arbitrable controversy.” A special proceeding is commenced by the filing of a petition (see CPLR 304). Thereafter, the petitioner must serve the respondent with a notice of petition, the petition, and supporting affidavits (see CPLR 403 [b] ). Pursuant to CPLR 403(c), a notice of petition shall be served in the same manner as a summons in an action.
In the case at bar, it was undisputed that the “first application arising out of the arbitrable controversy” was the instant special proceeding to confirm the arbitration award. It was also undisputed that the petitioner commenced the proceeding by simply mailing the petition, via ordinary mail, to the law firm that appeared for the appellant at the arbitration hearing. Moreover, the law firm denied that it was authorized to accept service on the appellant's behalf (see CPLR 311).
Accordingly, since the petitioner failed to properly serve the petition, the Supreme Court lacked personal jurisdiction over the appellant, and the motion to dismiss the proceeding should have been granted (see Matter of Hehl v. Government Empls. Ins. Co., 203 A.D.2d 572, 612 N.Y.S.2d 954; INA/Aetna v. American Mut. Ins. Co., 115 A.D.2d 640, 496 N.Y.S.2d 301; Matter of Country Wide Ins. Co. v. Polednak, 114 A.D.2d 754, 494 N.Y.S.2d 709).
In light of our determination, we do not reach the appellant's remaining contention.
Thank you for your feedback!
A free source of state and federal court opinions, state laws, and the United States Code. For more information about the legal concepts addressed by these cases and statutes visit FindLaw's Learn About the Law.
Decided: April 04, 2005
Court: Supreme Court, Appellate Division, Second 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)