
    Elias Bernstein and Others, Copartners, etc., Respondents, v. Harry Hakim, Appellant.
    Supreme Court, Appellate Term, First Department,
    February 10, 1926.
    Process —■ summons — service accomplished by fraud and deceit set aside — judgment predicated thereon reversed — defendant appeared specially on motion to vacate.
    Defendant’s motion to vacate the service of the summons and complaint herein, procured by fraud and deceit on the part of the plaintiff, should be granted and the judgment predicated thereon should be reversed for the reason that the court never acquired jurisdiction of the defendant who appeared specially on the motion.
    Appeal by defendant from an order of the Municipal Court, Borough of Manhattan, First District, denying a motion to vacate the service of a summons and complaint and from a judgment entered in this action.
    
      Droege & Rao [O. H. Droege of counsel], for the appellant.
    
      Silberman & Steinfeld [Louis R. Bick of counsel], for the respondents.
   Per Curiam.

The appearance of the defendant on the motion to vacate the service of the summons and complaint in this action was in substance a special appearance. Moreover, the court below acquired no jurisdiction over the person of the defendant, as the service of the summons and complaint was procured by fraud and deceit on the part of the plaintiff. Judgment and order appealed from reversed, with ten dollars costs, and motion to vacate the service of the summons and complaint is granted, with ten dollars costs.

All concur; present, Bijur, Delehanty and Wagner, JJ.  