From Casetext: Smarter Legal Research

Bernstein v. Hakim

Supreme Court, Appellate Term, First Department
Feb 10, 1926
126 Misc. 582 (N.Y. App. Term 1926)

Opinion

February 10, 1926.

Appeal from the Municipal Court, Borough of Manhattan, First District.

Droege Rao [ O.H. Droege of counsel], for the appellant.

Silberman Steinfeld [ Louis R. Bick of counsel], for the respondents.


The appearance of the defendant on the motion to vacate the service of the summons and complaint in this action was in substance a special appearance. Moreover, the court below acquired no jurisdiction over the person of the defendant, as the service of the summons and complaint was procured by fraud and deceit on the part of the plaintiff. Judgment and order appealed from reversed, with ten dollars costs, and motion to vacate the service of the summons and complaint is granted, with ten dollars costs.

All concur; present, BIJUR, DELEHANTY and WAGNER, JJ.


Summaries of

Bernstein v. Hakim

Supreme Court, Appellate Term, First Department
Feb 10, 1926
126 Misc. 582 (N.Y. App. Term 1926)
Case details for

Bernstein v. Hakim

Case Details

Full title:ELIAS BERNSTEIN and Others, Copartners, etc., Respondents, v. HARRY HAKIM…

Court:Supreme Court, Appellate Term, First Department

Date published: Feb 10, 1926

Citations

126 Misc. 582 (N.Y. App. Term 1926)
214 N.Y.S. 82

Citing Cases

Rando v. Impresa Navigazione Commercialle, S.A

Since 1951, section 237-a of the Civil Practice Act has governed the procedure considered here, but it does…

Hohmann Barnard v. Combined Welder

( Atlantic Pacific Telegraph Co. v. Baltimore Ohio R.R. Co., 46 N.Y. Super. Ct. [14 J. S.] 377; affd. 87 N.Y.…