Initially, we reject respondents' contention that the trial court erred in denying their motion to dismiss the petitions on jurisdictional grounds. Although petitioner himself served the papers to commence this proceeding in violation of CPLR 2103 (subd [a]), we conclude that, under the circumstances of this case, such service was merely irregular (see Matter of Kandel v State Div. of Human Rights,
Let's get started
Welcome to the leading source of independent legal reporting
Sign on now to see your case.
Or view more than 10 million decisions and orders.
- Updated daily.
- Uncompromising quality.
- Complete, Accurate, Current.