X

Thank you for sharing!

Your article was successfully shared with the contacts you provided.
http://nycourts.law.com/CourtDocumentViewer.asp?view=Document&docID=46922 Justice Palmieri DEFENDANT MOVED to: dismiss plaintiff’s complaint due to her failure to receive notice of an ex parte motion to extend plaintiff’s time for service; extend her time to move to dismiss for improper service; and, object to the addition of the codefendant. Referring to Civil Practice Law and Rules �306-b, the court held that there is no need to serve a proposed defendant with notice of motion seeking leave to extend time to make service. Referring to CPLR �3211(e), it denied defendant leave to make a late motion to dismiss, noting that her affidavit did not mention hardship that allegedly prevented her from moving within 60 days after service of her answer. Finding plaintiff’s amended summons and complaint were served before service of the original summons and complaint, the court held that because there was a failure to comply with CPLR ��305(a) and 1003 and no filing of the amended summons and complaint, the codefendant’s addition was null and the complaint must be dismissed.

Want to continue reading?
Become a Free ALM Digital Reader.

Benefits of a Digital Membership:

  • Free access to 3 articles* every 30 days
  • Access to the entire ALM network of websites
  • Unlimited access to the ALM suite of newsletters
  • Build custom alerts on any search topic of your choosing
  • Search by a wide range of topics

*May exclude premium content
Already have an account?

 
 

ALM Legal Publication Newsletters

Sign Up Today and Never Miss Another Story.

As part of your digital membership, you can sign up for an unlimited number of a wide range of complimentary newsletters. Visit your My Account page to make your selections. Get the timely legal news and critical analysis you cannot afford to miss. Tailored just for you. In your inbox. Every day.

Copyright © 2020 ALM Media Properties, LLC. All Rights Reserved.