You are here: / / Capacity to Sue Does Not Go to the Jurisdiction of the Court—Court...
,

Capacity to Sue Does Not Go to the Jurisdiction of the Court—Court Can Not Dismiss a Complaint Sua Sponte On that Ground—Capacity to Sue Must Be Raised as a Defense in the Answer or in a Pre-Answer Motion

The Third Department determined Supreme Court did not have the authority to dismiss a complaint sua sponte based upon the plaintiff’s capacity to sue.  The capacity to sue is not jurisdictional and must be raised as a defense:

“The issue of lack of capacity to sue does not go to the jurisdiction of the court . . . . Rather, lack of capacity to sue is a ground for dismissal which must be raised by [pre-answer] motion [or in the answer] and is otherwise waived” … . Here, plaintiff’s capacity to sue was not raised by pre-answer motion or in defendant’s answer. Consequently, Supreme Court erred in raising the issue sua sponte and dismissing the complaint on that basis (see CPLR 3211 [e]). As such, the order must be reversed and the complaint reinstated. Town of Delhi v Telian, 2014 NY Slip Op 05008, 3rd Dept 7-3-14

 

You might also like
Public Access Easement to Recreation Area Granted; Public Hearing Not Required
CPLR 204(A) IN CONJUNCTION WITH RPAPL 1301(3) TOLLED THE STATUTE OF LIMITATIONS WHILE THE FIRST FORECLOSURE ACTION WAS PENDING, FROM 2010 TO 2013, RENDERING THE SECOND FORECLOSURE ACTION IN 2017 TIMELY (THIRD DEPT).
CITY DID NOT VIOLATE THE PUBLIC USE DOCTRINE AND COMPLIED WITH THE EMINENT DOMAIN PROCEDURE LAW AND THE STATE ENVIRONMENTAL QUALITY REVIEW ACT (SEQRA) IN APPROVING THE TAKING OF LAND FOR A BICYCLE-PEDESTRIAN TRAIL (THIRD DEPT).
PETITION WAS PROPERLY DISMISSED BECAUSE IT DID NOT DEMONSTRATE SUBJECT MATTER JURISDICTION ON ITS FACE, BUT BECAUSE THE MERITS WERE NOT ADDRESSED THE PETITION SHOULD NOT HAVE BEEN DISMISSED WITH PREJUDICE (THIRD DEPT).
THEORY THAT DEFENDANT VETERINARY CLINIC WAS LIABLE IN NEGLIGENCE FOR A DOG BITE WHICH OCCURRED IN THE CLINIC WAITING ROOM REJECTED, ONLY A STRICT LIABILITY THEORY COULD APPLY AND PLAINTIFF CONCEDED RELIEF WAS NOT AVAILABLE PURSUANT TO STRICT LIABILITY (THIRD DEPT).
FIREFIGHTER’S INJURY FROM TOXIC FUMES UNRELATED TO A FIRE CONSTITUTED AN ACCIDENT ENTITLING FIREFIGHTER TO DISABILITY BENEFITS.
THE CONCLUSIONS OF THE PEOPLE’S ACCIDENT-RECONSTRUCTION EXPERT (WHO WAS NOT CALLED TO TESTIFY AT TRIAL) WOULD HAVE HAD AN IMPACT ON THE CONCLUSIONS DRAWN BY THE DEFENSE ACCIDENT-RECONSTRUCTION EXPERT; WITHHOLDING THE EVIDENCE FROM THE DEFENSE WAS A BRADY VIOLATION REQUIRING REVERSAL AND A NEW TRIAL (THIRD DEPT).
THE ROLLING LADDER LEFT IN THE AISLE OF DEFENDANT’S STORE WAS READILY OBVERSABLE, WHICH SPEAKS ONLY TO DEFENDANT’S DUTY TO WARN, NOT TO THE DUTY TO KEEP THE PREMISES SAFE; THE PROTRUDING BAR ON THE LADDER CREATED A POTENTIAL TRIPPING HAZARD; DEFENDANTS’ SUMMARY JUDGMENT MOTION SHOULD NOT HAVE BEEN GRANTED (THIRD DEPT).

Categories

Sign Up for the Mailing List to Be Notified When the Site Is Updated.

  • This field is for validation purposes and should be left unchanged.

Copyright © 2025 New York Appellate Digest, Inc.
Site by CurlyHost | Privacy Policy

Adverse Possession Criteria Explained Plaintiffs Could Not Demonstrate the Alleged Malpractice Was Proximate Cause...