Roslyn B. v. Alfred G.
| Decision Date | 18 December 1995 |
| Citation | 635 N.Y.S.2d 283,222 A.D.2d 581 |
| Parties | In the Matter of ROSLYN B. (Anonymous), Respondent, v. ALFRED G. (Anonymous), Appellant. |
| Court | New York Supreme Court — Appellate Division |
Kelley, Drye & Warren, New York City (Alan J. Gerson, Roderick J. Cassidy, and Stacey A. Kinnamon, of counsel), for appellant.
Paul A. Crotty, Corporation Counsel, New York City (Leonard Koerner and Ronald E. Sternberg, of counsel), for respondent.
Before ROSENBLATT, J.P., and COPERTINO, FRIEDMANN and KRAUSMAN, JJ.
MEMORANDUM BY THE COURT.
In a paternity proceeding, the father appeals from an order of the Family Court, Richmond County (Clark, J.), dated June 6, 1994, which, inter alia, denied his objections to an order of the same court (Panepinto, H.E.), dated January 19, 1994, and which denied his motion to dismiss the proceeding for lack of jurisdiction.
ORDERED that the order is affirmed, with costs.
A person who participates in the merits of an action appears informally and confers jurisdiction on the court (see, McLauglin, Practice Commentaries, McKinney's Cons Laws of NY, Book 7B, CPLR C320:2 at 491-492; Feola v. McCormack Lines, 173 A.D.2d 256, 569 N.Y.S.2d 653; Matter of Rosso v. Rosso, 171 A.D.2d 797, 567 N.Y.S.2d 513; Rubino v. City of New York, 145 A.D.2d 285, 538 N.Y.S.2d 547). The appellant conferred jurisdiction on the Family Court when he submitted to a blood grouping test and asserted denials of paternity through his attorney without raising a jurisdictional objection (see, Matter of Rosso v. Rosso, supra ). It is irrelevant whether the appellant was properly served since jurisdiction was conferred by his appearance (see, Skyline Agency v. Ambrose Coppotelli, Inc., 117 A.D.2d 135, 147-148, 502 N.Y.S.2d 479).
We reject the appellant's argument that his original attorney, appointed by the court pursuant to the Soldiers' and Sailors' Civil Relief Act of 1940, could not waive the appellant's right to raise a jurisdictional objection (see, 50 U.S.C.A., Appendix § 520[3] ). The purpose of this act is to prevent default judgments from being entered against military personnel without their knowledge (see, Title Guarantee & Trust Co. v. Duffy, 267 A.D. 444, 46 N.Y.S.2d 441; Burgess v. Burgess, 234 N.Y.S.2d 87). Once the appellant knew of the action and authorized his court-appointed attorney to appear on his behalf, the appellant was no longer entitled to further benefits under the Soldiers' and Sailors' Civil Relief Act of 1940 (see, ...
To continue reading
Request your trial
-
Kelsey v. Forster & Garbus, LLP
...court.’ " USF & G v. Maggiore , 299 A.D.2d 341, 342-43, 749 N.Y.S.2d 555 (2d Dep't 2002) (quoting Matter of Roslyn B. v. Alfred G. , 222 A.D.2d 581, 582, 635 N.Y.S.2d 283 (2d Dep't 1995) ); Sheinkman v. Khalif , 5 Misc. 3d 1012(A), 2004 WL 2535207, at *3 (N.Y. Civ. Ct., Kings Cty. 2004) ("C......
-
Hensley v. Williamsville Cent. Sch. Dist.
...jurisdiction of the entities they represent. The Court finds these arguments unavailing. See generally Roslyn B. v. Alfred G. , 222 A.D.2d 581, 635 N.Y.S.2d 283 (2nd Dept. 1995). Contrary to State Respondent's contentions, the Petition is not time-barred. Here, the alleged wrong, or the con......
-
Lawry v. Lawry
...and once the service member knew of the action, the litigant was “no longer entitled to further benefits.” Roslyn B. v. Alfred G., 222 A.D.2d 581, 635 N.Y.S.2d 283 (2nd Dept.1995). The same discretion in considering whether military service “materially affects” the service member's case app......
-
U.S. Bank Nat'l Ass'n v. Cadoo
...who participates in the merits of an action appears informally and confers jurisdiction on the court" ( Matter of Roslyn B. v. Alfred G., 222 A.D.2d 581, 582, 635 N.Y.S.2d 283 ). Certain types of limited involvement in an action by a defendant do not waive jurisdictional defenses, such as "......