Opinion

New York State Restaurant Ass'n v. Board of Standards & Appeals

  • 38 Misc. 2d 1023
  • 239 N.Y.S.2d 400
  • 1963 N.Y. Misc. LEXIS 2117
Court
New York Supreme Court
Filed
Apr 19, 1963
Status
Published
Author
Bookstein
On the bench
Bookstein
Cited by
1 cases
Authority
More cited than 55.5%

The opinion

Isadore Bookstein, J.

In this article 78 proceeding, petitioner directed its petition to the Appellate Division, Third Department. Petitioner served no notice of application or order to show cause, based upon said petition.

Thereafter, petitioner moved in the Appellate Division for an order transferring the petition to Supreme Court, Albany *1024 County. Respondents appeared specially and moved to dismiss on the ground that no jurisdiction was obtained by the Appellate Division as no process was served on respondents but that only the petition was served. Ultimately, the Appellate Division transferred this proceeding and stated: “ We do not pass upon any jurisdictional or other questions that may be properly raised before the Special Term upon proper application.” (18 A D 2d 1135.)

The matter has now come before this Special Term and respondents appear specially and in effect move for a dismissal of the proceeding on the ground that the court has no jurisdiction of respondents, since no process was served on them.

Concededly, the only paper served herein was the petition. No notice of application for the relief sought by the petition was served. Nor was any order to show cause based on such petition ever served.

Jurisdiction of the person of a defendant or respondent is obtained by some form of service of process. In the case of an action, it is by service of a summons. In the case of an article 78 proceeding, it is by service of a notice of application to a court having jurisdiction, returnable before such court at a definite time and place or by an order to show cause returnable in the same manner.

Jurisdiction is not obtained by service of a pleading, such as a complaint in an action or a petition in an article 78 proceeding.

The argument that the court has the power to correct the situation here presented, as an irregularity, is not tenable. A court can correct a mere irregularity, once it has obtained jurisdiction of the person of a defendant or a respondent, by the service of process. It cannot, in the guise of correcting an irregularity or in liberality, obtain jurisdiction of a person, when such jurisdiction has not yet been obtained by the service of process upon him.

Motion of respondents must be granted.

This is a copy of a public record, reproduced as it was published. It is not legal advice, and it may not be the version a court would rely on. Check the official source before you cite it.

A word about cookies

We need a few to keep you signed in and the library working. The rest help us see which pages people use and where they get stuck. They stay off unless you say yes.