You are here: / / RE-SERVICE AFTER EXPIRATION OF STATUTE OF LIMITATIONS PROPERLY ALLOWED...

RE-SERVICE AFTER EXPIRATION OF STATUTE OF LIMITATIONS PROPERLY ALLOWED.

The Second Department determined re-service of the summons and complaint after the statute of limitations had passed was properly allowed:

The Supreme Court providently exercised its discretion in granting that branch of the plaintiffs’ cross motion which was pursuant to CPLR 306-b to extend the time to serve the defendant with the summons and complaint in the interest of justice … . While the action was timely commenced, the statute of limitations had expired when the plaintiffs cross-moved for relief, the plaintiffs re-served the defendant within a reasonable time after learning that the timely service of process was being challenged by the defendant as defective, and the defendant had actual notice of the action within 120 days of its commencement … . Furthermore, after re-serving the defendant, the plaintiffs cross-moved within a reasonable time for an extension of time to serve the defendant, and there was no identifiable prejudice to the defendant attributable to the delay in service … . Rivera v Rodriguez, 2016 NY Slip Op 05855, 2nd Dept 8-24-16

CIVIL PROCEDURE (RE-SERVICE AFTER EXPIRATION OF STATUTE OF LIMITATIONS PROPERLY ALLOWED)/STATUTE OF LIMITATIONS (RE-SERVICE AFTER EXPIRATION OF STATUTE OF LIMITATIONS PROPERLY ALLOWED)

You might also like
Murder Conviction Against the Weight of the Evidence—Strangulation Was the Result of an Attempt to Increase Sexual Pleasure—No Intent to Kill
Where the Complaint Alleged Only that the Driveway Was Defective and the Complaint Against the Company Which Renovated the Driveway Was Dismissed, the Complaint Against the Property Owners Should Have Been Dismissed As Well–There Was No Viable Theory for Liability on the Part of the Property Owners
COMPLAINT STATED A CAUSE OF ACTION AGAINST BROKER INDIVIDUALLY FOR NEGLIGENT MISREPRESENTATION AND FOR BREACH OF A FIDUCIARY DUTY AGAINST THE BROKER’S CORPORATION.
ALTHOUGH THE ATTORNEYS IN THIS LEGAL MALPRACTICE ACTION MISSED THE STATUTE OF LIMITATIONS, THE COMPLAINT DID NOT ALLEGE SUFFICIENT FACTS TO DEMONSTRATE THE UNDERLYING LAWSUITS WOULD HAVE SUCCEEDED HAD THEY BEEN TIMELY BROUGHT (SECOND DEPT).
PLAINTIFF’S MOTION TO SET ASIDE THE DEFENSE VERDICT IN THIS SLIP AND FALL CASE SHOULD HAVE BEEN GRANTED (SECOND DEPT).
FATHER HAD PAID ALL THE CHILD SUPPORT HE OWED; THE SENTENCE OF INCARCERATION SHOULD NOT HAVE BEEN IMPOSED (SECOND DEPT).
PLAINTIFF FELL FROM AN UNSECURED A-FRAME LADDER THAT SHIFTED FOR NO APPARENT REASON, SUMMARY JUDGMENT ON HIS LABOR LAW 240 (1) CAUSE OF ACTION PROPERLY GRANTED.
DRIVER AND CAR OWNER WERE NOT EMPLOYEES OF CAR SERVICE, CAR SERVICE THEREFORE NOT LIABLE FOR ACCIDENT UNDER DOCTRINE OF RESPONDEAT SUPERIOR.

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

STATE SENATE CANDIDATE, WHO REGISTERED TO VOTE IN WASHINGTON DC IN 2014, DID... DOCTRINE OF MUTUAL MISTAKE APPLIED TO REFORM NOTE AND MORTGAGE.