Gomez v. Bobker
| Decision Date | 01 October 1984 |
| Citation | 480 N.Y.S.2d 43,104 A.D.2d 790 |
| Parties | Florencio GOMEZ, Plaintiff, v. Mendel BOBKER, et al., Defendants, Department of Housing Preservation and Development of the City of New York, Defendant-Respondent, Max Britvan, Receiver-Respondent, Abrams, et al., Appellants. |
| Court | New York Supreme Court — Appellate Division |
Jeffrey G. Abrandt, Brooklyn (Jonathan Ben-Asher, New York City, of counsel) and Morton B. Dicker and Marshall Green, New York City (Janice S. Robinson, New York City, of counsel), for appellants (one brief filed).
Bruce Kramer, New York City (Janeesa C. Nisley, Brooklyn, of counsel, for respondent Dept. of Housing Preservation and Development of the City of New York.
William J. Garry, P.C., Brooklyn (Jean Smiertka, Brooklyn, of counsel), for respondent Britvan.
Before MANGANO, J.P., and O'CONNOR, BOYERS and EIBER, JJ.
MEMORANDUM BY THE COURT.
In a mortgage foreclosure action, the appeal is from an order of the Supreme Court, Kings County, dated December 12, 1983, which, inter alia, granted the receiver's petition for an accounting by the Flatbush Tenants' Council, Clark Gebman, and certain named tenants of the subject premises, enjoined them from collecting any rental payments or maintaining any control over the premises, and further enjoined them from soliciting other tenants to withhold monthly rental payments from the receiver and denied a cross motion, inter alia, to dismiss the receiver's petition.
Order reversed, on the law, without costs or disbursements, and cross motion to dismiss the petition granted.
The receiver in this mortgage foreclosure action served appellants with an order to show cause and petition under the caption of the mortgage foreclosure action to obtain certain relief, inter alia, directing, among others, the Flatbush Tenants' Council and Clark Gebman to account for moneys collected from the appellant tenants of the building being foreclosed, which allegedly should have been paid to the receiver. The receiver also sought an order of ejectment and possession against each of the appellant tenants. Appellants cross-moved to dismiss the petition on the ground that personal jurisdiction had not been obtained over them by proper service of process.
Appellants' cross motion should have been granted. Personal jurisdiction in an action is acquired by service of a summons. In a special proceeding, personal jurisdiction is acquired by service of a notice of petition or an order to show cause (CPLR...
To continue reading
Request your trial
-
People v. Mescall
...over the appellee is but a continuation of the trial court's jurisdiction." Chabert, 694 So.2d at 813. Also, in Gomez v. Bobker, 104 A.D.2d 790, 791, 480 N.Y.S.2d 43, 44 (1984), the Appellate Division of the Supreme Court of New York recognized that an appellate court will lack personal jur......
-
People v. Mescall, No. 2-03-0185 (Ill. App. 4/20/2004)
...over the appellee is but a continuation of the trial court's jurisdiction." Chabert, 694 So. 2d at 813. Also, in Gomez v. Bobker, 104 A.D.2d 790, 791, 480 N.Y.S.2d 43, 44 (1984), the Appellate Division of the Supreme Court of New York recognized that an appellate court will lack personal ju......
-
Recycle v. Lacatena
...Council of City of Gloversville v. Town Bd. of Town of Johnstown, supra, 144 A.D.2d at 92-93, 536 N.Y.S.2d 881; Gomez v. Bobker, 104 A.D.2d 790, 790-791, 480 N.Y.S.2d 43; Matter of New York State Rest. Assn. v. Board of Stds. & Appeals of State of N.Y., supra, 19 A.D.2d at 913, 244 N.Y.S.2d......
-
Iglesias v. Rodriguez
...of an order to show cause, an action, on the other hand, is commenced and jurisdiction acquired by service of a summons. Gomez v. Bobker, 104 A.D.2d 790, 480 N.Y.S.2d 43. At best, the summons and complaint appeared to be mere exhibits to the order to show cause, and as such were insufficien......