Already have an account? Sign in instead.
You stay signed in for 30 days on this browser.
Continue with Google Continue with MicrosoftNo account yet? Create a free one.
We sent a six-digit code.
It expires in ten minutes, works once, and only in this browser. Five wrong tries void it. Send another code.
Your account is live and the Cloudflare checks are off for this browser.
9 New York opinions name it 4 courts 1958–2014 0 in the last five years
The cases below were cited by New York courts in a sentence that names this issue. Sides come from how each citing opinion treated the case (Syfertize flag on that citation), so a case can appear on both: that is where the law is contested. A red or yellow chip is the case's own overall treatment.
| Case | Followed | Cited |
|---|---|---|
Child Support Enforcement Unit v. John M.green2 sentences2013In any event, the summons and petition are in conformance with the requisite provisions of Family Court Act § 453 (cf. Matter of Stagnar v Stagnar, 98 AD2d 983, 984 [1983]; see generally Matter of Santana v Gonzalez, 90 AD3d 1198, 1199 [2011]; Matter of Child Support Enforcement Unit v John M., 283 AD2d 40, 43 [2001]), and the record reflects that the father otherwise was afforded his due process rights in the proceeding. 2006As the court properly determined, petitioner failed to comply with Family Court Act § 453 (b) by including in the summons the warnings required by that section, and the court therefore did not have jurisdiction to order the incarceration of respondent (cf. Matter of Child Support Enforcement Unit v John M., 283 AD2d 40, 43 [2001]; see generally Matter of Brunelle v Bibeau, 18 AD3d 927, 928-929 [2005]). | 2 | 2 |
Chase Home Finance, LLC v. Minottgreen1 sentence2014Moreover, the defendant’s assertions are belied by the language included in the summons warning her that she was in “IN DANGER OF LOSING” her home, that she should “[s]peak to an attorney or go to the court,” and that she “MUST RESPOND BY SERVING A COPY OF THE ANSWER” (see RPAPL 1320; HSBC Bank USA, N.A. v Lafazan, 115 AD3d at 648; Chase Home Fin., LLC v Minott, 115 AD3d at 634-635). | 1 | 1 |
HSBC Bank USA, National Ass'n v. Lafazangreen2 sentences2014Moreover, the defendant’s assertions are belied by the language included in the summons warning her that she was in “IN DANGER OF LOSING” her home, that she should “[s]peak to an attorney or go to the court,” and that she “MUST RESPOND BY SERVING A COPY OF THE ANSWER” (see RPAPL 1320; HSBC Bank USA, N.A. v Lafazan, 115 AD3d at 648; Chase Home Fin., LLC v Minott, 115 AD3d at 634-635). 2014Since the defendant failed to offer a reasonable excuse, it is unnecessary to consider whether she sufficiently demonstrated a potentially meritorious defense (see HSBC Bank USA, N.A. v Lafazan, 115 AD3d at 648; U.S. Bank N.A. v Stewart, 97 AD3d 740 [2012]). | 1 | 1 |
Santana v. Gonzalezgreen1 sentence2013In any event, the summons and petition are in conformance with the requisite provisions of Family Court Act § 453 (cf. Matter of Stagnar v Stagnar, 98 AD2d 983, 984 [1983]; see generally Matter of Santana v Gonzalez, 90 AD3d 1198, 1199 [2011]; Matter of Child Support Enforcement Unit v John M., 283 AD2d 40, 43 [2001]), and the record reflects that the father otherwise was afforded his due process rights in the proceeding. | 1 | 1 |
Stagnar v. Stagnargreen1 sentence2013In any event, the summons and petition are in conformance with the requisite provisions of Family Court Act § 453 (cf. Matter of Stagnar v Stagnar, 98 AD2d 983, 984 [1983]; see generally Matter of Santana v Gonzalez, 90 AD3d 1198, 1199 [2011]; Matter of Child Support Enforcement Unit v John M., 283 AD2d 40, 43 [2001]), and the record reflects that the father otherwise was afforded his due process rights in the proceeding. | 1 | 1 |
Brunelle v. Bibeaugreen1 sentence2006As the court properly determined, petitioner failed to comply with Family Court Act § 453 (b) by including in the summons the warnings required by that section, and the court therefore did not have jurisdiction to order the incarceration of respondent (cf. Matter of Child Support Enforcement Unit v John M., 283 AD2d 40, 43 [2001]; see generally Matter of Brunelle v Bibeau, 18 AD3d 927, 928-929 [2005]). | 1 | 1 |
| Case | Negative | Cited |
|---|---|---|
| No negative-treatment citations attached to this issue in New York. Read the followed side critically anyway. | ||
| Case | Cited | Years |
|---|---|---|
Thomas v. First National Bank of Lisbon
green
2 sentences1961Bank of Lisbon, 263 App. Div. 476, 478 ). 1958Bank of Lisbon, 263 App. Div. 476, 478 ). | 2 | 1958–1961 |
U.S. Bank National Ass'n v. Stewart
green
1 sentence2014Since the defendant failed to offer a reasonable excuse, it is unnecessary to consider whether she sufficiently demonstrated a potentially meritorious defense (see HSBC Bank USA, N.A. v Lafazan, 115 AD3d at 648; U.S. Bank N.A. v Stewart, 97 AD3d 740 [2012]). | 1 | 2014–2014 |
People v. Concepcion
green
1 sentence2005The officer’s action of placing his arm on defendant’s back, at waist level, to guide him toward the police car was incidental to such detention and did not constitute a frisk (see People v Chin, 192 AD2d 413 [1993], lv denied 81 NY2d 1071 [1993]). | 1 | 2005–2005 |
Tamburo v. P & C Food Markets, Inc.
neutral
1 sentence1984Inasmuch as the summons was jurisdictionally defective, the 60-day extension of the Statute of Limitations period contained in CPLR 203 (subd [b], par 5, cl [i]), was not available to plaintiff, and, contrary to Special Term’s determination, the commencement of the action was therefore untimely (see Tamburo v P & C Food Markets, 36 AD2d 1017 )” (Frerk v Mercy Hosp., 99 AD2d 504 ). 11 Similarly, the defect in the summons at bar rendered the 60-day extension unavailable to plaintiffs. | 1 | 1984–1984 |
Donner v. 50 Tom Corp.
green
1 sentence1984Inasmuch as the summons was jurisdictionally defective, the 60-day extension of the Statute of Limitations period contained in CPLR 203 (subd [b], par 5, cl [i]), was not available to plaintiff, and, contrary to Special Term’s determination, the commencement of the action was therefore untimely (see Tamburo v P & C Food Markets, 36 AD2d 1017 )” (Frerk v Mercy Hosp., 99 AD2d 504 ). 11 Similarly, the defect in the summons at bar rendered the 60-day extension unavailable to plaintiffs. | 1 | 1984–1984 |
People v. Loewinger
green
1 sentence1977In People v Loewinger ( 37 AD2d 675 , supra) the defendant was indicted for second degree assault and escape, allegedly committed when police officers came to arrest him for his failure to respond to a summons for a violation of the Vehicle and Traffic Law, on which charge he had been represented by Gellman, an attorney. | 1 | 1977–1977 |
People v. Powell
neutral
1 sentence1963Complainant has produced sworn statements, sufficient in my opinion to justify the issuance of a summons under the test recommended by Judge Gellikoee when these same litigants brought this question" before the New York Supreme Court ( 40 Misc 2d 550 ). | 1 | 1963–1963 |
Opinions by the citing court's state. A doctrine retained in one state and abandoned in another shows up here as a year span that stalls.