From Casetext: Smarter Legal Research

Widelski v. Fadden

Appellate Division of the Supreme Court of New York, Fourth Department
May 7, 1958
6 A.D.2d 753 (N.Y. App. Div. 1958)

Opinion

May 7, 1958

Appeal from the Erie Special Term.

Present — McCurn, P.J., Kimball, Williams, Bastow and Halpern, JJ.


Order reversed on the law, with $10 costs and disbursements and motion granted, with $10 costs. Memorandum: The defendant's motion to set aside the substituted service should have been granted. The statutory requirements of section 231 of the Civil Practice Act were not complied with. Whether the failure to file the order and other papers pursuant to said section was a procedural or jurisdictional defect was not passed upon by the Special Term and we do not need to pass upon that question. Special Term denied the motion and excused late filing as a matter of discretion. We consider this error. The statute concededly was not followed and there was no motion for leave to file nunc pro tunc. Whether the Special Term would have power to grant an application to file the order and papers nunc pro tunc was not presented to Special Term and we do not pass upon that question. All concur.


Summaries of

Widelski v. Fadden

Appellate Division of the Supreme Court of New York, Fourth Department
May 7, 1958
6 A.D.2d 753 (N.Y. App. Div. 1958)
Case details for

Widelski v. Fadden

Case Details

Full title:MARIE WIDELSKI et al., Respondents, v. JOHN F. FADDEN, Appellant, et al.…

Court:Appellate Division of the Supreme Court of New York, Fourth Department

Date published: May 7, 1958

Citations

6 A.D.2d 753 (N.Y. App. Div. 1958)

Citing Cases

Soemann v. Carr

on 231. But even if we disregard this and other deficiencies in the order, it is impossible to find that…