O'Fennell Corp. v. O'Fennell's of Pine Hill, Inc.
| Citation | 188 A.D.2d 981,591 N.Y.S.2d 902 |
| Parties | O'FENNELL CORPORATION, Respondent, v. O'FENNELL'S OF PINE HILL, INC., Appellant, et al., Defendant. |
| Decision Date | 31 December 1992 |
| Court | New York Supreme Court — Appellate Division |
Del Atwell, New York City, for appellant.
Kent D. Anderson, Kingston, for respondent.
Before MIKOLL, J.P., and LEVINE, MERCURE, MAHONEY and CASEY, JJ.
Appeal from a decision of the Supreme Court (Connor, J.), entered August 22, 1991 in Ulster County, which, inter alia, partially granted the motion of defendant O'Fennell's of Pine Hill Inc. for an extension of time to appear.
Plaintiff commenced this action against defendant O'Fennell's of Pine Hill Inc. (hereinafter defendant) in January 1991 by delivery of the summons and complaint to the Secretary of State pursuant to Business Corporation Law § 306(b)(1). On May 8, 1991, defendant moved for an order extending its time to appear or plead (CPLR 3012[d] upon the grounds that it had not received notice of the commencement of the action until April 26, 1991 and that plaintiff had not acquired in personam jurisdiction over it. At an August 22, 1991 conference, Supreme Court rendered an oral decision granting the motion to the extent of allowing defendant a period of 20 days within which to serve an answer. At the same time, Supreme Court sua sponte determined that plaintiff had obtained personal jurisdiction over defendant, thereby depriving defendant of the opportunity to raise the jurisdictional objection in its answer or by motion to dismiss the complaint. Defendant appeals.
Although Supreme Court clearly erred in its premature consideration of the merits of defendant's jurisdictional defense, it appears that Supreme Court's August 22, 1991 decision was never reduced to an order. Inasmuch as defendant is attempting to appeal from a decision, we are required to dismiss the appeal (see, CPLR 5512[a]; Bernstein v. Bernstein, 122 A.D.2d 96, 504 N.Y.S.2d 1019; Burometto v. Town of Schodack, 85 A.D.2d 805, 449 N.Y.S.2d 655, appeal dismissed, 55 N.Y.2d 1036, 449 N.Y.S.2d 1031, 434 N.E.2d 1082; 1 Newman, NY Appellate Practice § 3.09[1].
ORDERED that the appeal is dismissed, without costs.
To continue reading
Request your trial
-
Matter of Palmer v. Palmer
...appealable paper (see, CPLR 5512 [a]), petitioner's appeal is not properly before us and must be dismissed (see, O'Fennell Corp. v O'Fennell's of Pine Hill, 188 A.D.2d 981, 982; Levy v Baumeister, 170 A.D.2d 385, 385; People ex rel. Frazier v Fogg, 122 A.D.2d 377; Matter of Shawn C.A., 110 ......
-
Rgll, Inc. v. Grannis
... ... Chittenden Falls Realty Corp. v. Cray Val. Prods., 208 A.D.2d 1114, 1115, 618 N.Y.S.2d ... ...
-
Puff v. Jorling
... ... Corp., 160 A.D.2d 1186, 1187, 555 N.Y.S.2d 196). The ... ...
-
Westport Aviation Corp. v. Kuntz
...pursuant to CPLR 5512(a). Consequently, County Court correctly dismissed defendant's appeal (see, O'Fennell Corp. v. O'Fennell's of Pine Hill, 188 A.D.2d 981, 591 N.Y.S.2d 902; Burometto v. Town of Schodack, 85 A.D.2d 805, 449 N.Y.S.2d 655, appeal dismissed 55 N.Y.2d 1036, 449 N.Y.S.2d 1031......