X

Thank you for sharing!

Your article was successfully shared with the contacts you provided.

Stanley Law Offices, LLP, Syracuse (Robert Quattrocci of counsel), for appellant. Smith Sovik Kendrick & Sugnet PC, Syracuse (Christopher F. DeFrancesco of counsel), for respondent. Appeal from an order of the Supreme Court (Blaise III, J.), entered April 15, 2020 in Broome County, which, among other things, denied plaintiff’s cross motion to amend the complaint. In September 2016, plaintiff allegedly slipped and fell in the bathroom of a McDonald’s restaurant located in the Town of Williamson, Wayne County. In August 2019, plaintiff commenced this action against defendant to recover for the injuries that he sustained. Defendant answered, asserting, among other affirmative defenses, a lack of personal jurisdiction and that she is not a proper party because she does not own, operate, maintain or control the business in which plaintiff was allegedly injured. Defendant subsequently moved to dismiss the complaint on the same grounds, contending that “Nancyone, Inc.,” a New York corporation for which defendant is a corporate officer, owned and operated the subject McDonald’s restaurant and that it had not been properly served with the summons and complaint prior to the expiration of the statute of limitations. Plaintiff cross-moved to amend the complaint to substitute Nancyone for defendant pursuant to CPLR 305 (c) and/or 203 (c) and for an extension of time to serve Nancyone pursuant to CPLR 306-b. Supreme Court denied plaintiff’s cross motion, determining, as relevant here, that CPLR 305 (c) was inapplicable to plaintiff’s claim as Nancyone was not a misnomer for defendant. Supreme Court further held that the relation back doctrine (see CPLR 205 [c]) did not apply as defendant and Nancyone were not united in interest and that plaintiff did not qualify for an extension of time to serve pursuant to CPLR 306-b. Supreme Court deemed defendant’s motion to dismiss to be a motion for summary judgment and granted it, dismissing plaintiff’s complaint. Plaintiff appeals. Plaintiff contends that Supreme Court erred in denying that part of his cross motion that sought leave to amend his complaint pursuant to CPLR 305 (c). We agree. As relevant here, “[i]f a defendant has been misnamed in the caption of the summons and complaint, but has nonetheless been properly served within the limitations period, amendment of the summons and complaint should be allowed in the absence of demonstrated prejudice to a substantial right” (Benware v. Schoenborn, 198 AD2d 710, 711 [1993]; see CPLR 305 [c]; Chambers v. Prug, 162 AD3d 974, 974 [2018]; Smith v. Garo Enters., Inc., 60 AD3d 751, 751-752 [2009], lv dismissed 13 NY3d 756 [2009]). In support of his cross motion, plaintiff submitted, among other things, the affidavits of the process server who served the summons and verified complaint. According to the affidavits of service, including a supplemental affidavit that was filed in January 2020, defendant and Nancyone were both timely served with process within the applicable limitations period. The process server initially attempted to serve defendant on August 20, 2019 at 12:30 p.m. at the McDonald’s where plaintiff was injured. Although no one at that location was authorized to accept service on defendant’s behalf, he was provided with defendant’s cell number and was informed that he could effect service at Nancyone’s corporate office address located at 218 Ford Street in the Village of Newark, Wayne County. The process server thereafter spoke with defendant on the telephone and was informed that “her father was very ill and near death” and that she was not available to personally accept service. He then proceeded to Nancyone’s corporate office and effected service at 1:12 p.m. on August 20, 2019 on Andrew Dusharm, the office manager, who affirmatively indicated that he was authorized to accept service on defendant’s behalf.[1] Viewing the foregoing circumstances objectively, we are satisfied that the subject service was adequately calculated to, and did in fact, give Nancyone fair notice of the claims against it (see CPLR 311 [a] [1]; Fashion Page v. Zurich Ins. Co., 50 NY2d 265, 272-273 [1980]; Matter of DeMeo v. City of Albany, 63 AD3d 1272, 1273 [2009]; Benware v. Schoenborn, 198 AD2d at 712). Moreover, there is nothing in the record indicating that Nancyone would be prejudiced by permitting plaintiff to amend the caption to correct this misnomer (see CPLR 305 [c]; Duncan v. Emerald Expositions, LLC, 186 AD3d 1321, 1323 [2020]).[2] Accordingly, we find that Supreme Court should have allowed plaintiff to amend the caption to reflect the proper name of the intended defendant, Nancyone, and deemed the attached amended summons and complaint timely served (see Matter of DeMeo v. City of Albany, 63 AD3d at 1273; Benware v. Schoenborn, 198 AD2d at 712; compare Fadlalla v. Yankee Trails World Tours, Inc., 173 AD3d 1538, 1540 [2019]). In light of our holding, defendant’s motion is denied. Finally, plaintiff’s contention regarding the applicability of CPLR 203 (c) and/or 306-b has been rendered academic. Garry, P.J., Aarons and Pritzker, JJ., concur. ORDERED that the order is reversed, on the law, with costs, defendant’s motion denied and plaintiff’s cross motion granted.

 
Reprints & Licensing
Mentioned in a Law.com story?

License our industry-leading legal content to extend your thought leadership and build your brand.

More From ALM

With this subscription you will receive unlimited access to high quality, online, on-demand premium content from well-respected faculty in the legal industry. This is perfect for attorneys licensed in multiple jurisdictions or for attorneys that have fulfilled their CLE requirement but need to access resourceful information for their practice areas.
View Now
Our Team Account subscription service is for legal teams of four or more attorneys. Each attorney is granted unlimited access to high quality, on-demand premium content from well-respected faculty in the legal industry along with administrative access to easily manage CLE for the entire team.
View Now
Gain access to some of the most knowledgeable and experienced attorneys with our 2 bundle options! Our Compliance bundles are curated by CLE Counselors and include current legal topics and challenges within the industry. Our second option allows you to build your bundle and strategically select the content that pertains to your needs. Both options are priced the same.
View Now
September 18, 2024 - September 19, 2024
Dallas, TX

Join General Counsel and Senior Legal Leaders at the Premier Forum Designed For and by General Counsel from Fortune 1000 Companies


Learn More
September 24, 2024
Chicago, IL

Women, Influence & Power in Law Awards honors women lawyers who have made a remarkable difference in the legal profession.


Learn More
September 23, 2024 - September 25, 2024
Chicago, IL

WIPL is the original global forum facilitating women-to-women exchange on leadership and legal issues.


Learn More

Associate attorney position at NJ Immigration Law firm: Leschak & Associates, LLC, based in Freehold, NJ, is looking for a full time ass...


Apply Now ›

Javerbaum Wurgaft, a large civil litigation firm with nine (9) offices, seeks: Plaintiff Personal Injury Attorney for Northern New Jersey of...


Apply Now ›

Exciting Career Opportunities at Nuzzo & Roberts! Nuzzo & Roberts, a leading mid-sized insurance defense firm based in Cheshire, CT...


Apply Now ›