Courts Obligated To Address Jurisdictional Issues Before Reaching Merits Of A Case

A 2006 ruling of a New York appellate court serves as a reminder that a trial court's jurisdiction to entertain a dispute is a threshold matter and, accordingly, a trial court has the obligation to address this issue before proceeeding forward to rule on the merits of the case.

The appeals court ruled that it was error for a trial court to grant a judgment in a foreclosure action before first addressing whether the defendant/homeowner was properly served with legal process:

• [W]ith respect to that branch of the defendant's motion which was to dismiss the complaint on jurisdictional grounds, the defendant's sworn denial of receipt of process was sufficient to rebut the proffered affidavit of service and the plaintiff, therefore, was required to establish personal jurisdiction by a preponderance of the evidence at a hearing (see Schwerner v Sagonas, 28 AD3d 468, 811 NYS2d 595 [2006]; Bankers Trust Co. of Cal. v Tsoukas, 303 AD2d 343, 343-344, 756 NYS2d 92 [2003]; Kingsland Group v Pose, 296 AD2d 440, 744 NYS2d 715 [2002]).

• It is "axiomatic that the failure to serve process in an action leaves the court without personal jurisdiction over the defendant, and all subsequent proceedings are thereby rendered null and void" (McMullen v Arnone, 79 AD2d 496, 499, 437 NYS2d 373 [1981). Accordingly, the Supreme Court erred in determining the plaintiff's motion before resolving the threshold issue of jurisdiction (see Pena v Mittleman, 179 AD2d 607, 579 NYS2d 359 [1992]).

For the court's ruling, see Elm Mgt. Corp. v. Sprung, 2006 NY Slip Op 7446; 33 A.D.3d 753; 823 N.Y.S.2d 187; 2006 N.Y. App. Div. LEXIS 12494 (App. Div. 2nd Dept. 2006).