You are here: / / MOTION FOR SUMMARY JUDGMENT SHOULD NOT HAVE BEEN DENIED SOLELY ON THE GROUND...
,

MOTION FOR SUMMARY JUDGMENT SHOULD NOT HAVE BEEN DENIED SOLELY ON THE GROUND THAT THE AFFIDAVIT OF SERVICE WAS FILED IN THE WRONG COURT.

The Second Department determined summary judgment should not have been granted on the ground that the affidavit of service was filed in the wrong office. Service was timely made and the error was corrected as soon as it was known:

​

” The failure to file proof of service is a procedural irregularity, not a jurisdictional defect, that may be cured by motion or sua sponte by the court in its discretion'” … .Here, there is no reason to believe that the defendants did not properly and timely serve Minard in compliance with the so-ordered stipulation dated December 8, 2014. Moreover, the defendants promptly requested permission to correct the irregularity in filing the affidavit of service after learning that it was filed in the wrong office, and there was no allegation or indication of prejudice to the plaintiff as a result of the requested correction. Under these circumstances, the Supreme Court improvidently exercised its discretion in denying the defendants’ application for an extension of time to file the affidavit of service in the Clerk’s office, and thereupon denying their motion for summary judgment on the ground that they failed to file proof of service in that office … . Buist v Bromley Co., LLC, 2017 NY Slip Op 04417, 2nd Dept 6-7-17

CIVIL PROCEDURE (AFFIDAVIT OF SERVICE, MOTION FOR SUMMARY JUDGMENT SHOULD NOT HAVE BEEN DENIED SOLELY ON THE GROUND THAT THE AFFIDAVIT OF SERVICE WAS FILED IN THE WRONG COURT)/AFFIDAVIT OF SERVICE (ERROR IN FILING, MOTION FOR SUMMARY JUDGMENT SHOULD NOT HAVE BEEN DENIED SOLELY ON THE GROUND THAT THE AFFIDAVIT OF SERVICE WAS FILED IN THE WRONG COURT)

You might also like
Abuse Not Demonstrated; Conflicting Expert Testimony
THE NYC DEPARTMENT OF EDUCATION PROPERLY DENIED PETITIONER-TEACHER’S REQUEST FOR AN EXTENSION OF AN EXEMPTION FROM THE COVID VACCINE MANDATE BECAUSE THE MANDATE IS NO LONGER IN EFFECT; SUPREME COURT SHOULD NOT HAVE ISSUED AN ADVISORY OPINION TO THE CONTRARY; THE AWARD OF ATTORNEY’S FEES WAS IMPROPER; THE PETITION DID NOT MEET THE CRITERIA FOR AN EXCEPTION TO THE MOOTNESS DOCTRINE (SECOND DEPT).
BANK DID NOT SUBMIT SUFFICIENT PROOF OF A LOST NOTE AND COMPLIANCE WITH NOTICE REQUIREMENTS IN THIS FORECLOSURE ACTION; SUMMARY JUDGMENT SHOULD NOT HAVE BEEN GRANTED (SECOND DEPT).
Defendants Not Liable for Assault by a Contractor-Security Guard—No Showing Defendants Were Aware of Security Guard’s Propensity for Violence—Security Guard’s Actions Were Outside the Scope of Employment
Plaintiff Did Not Raise an Issue of Fact Re: Vicious Propensities of Defendants’ Dog
THE 2ND DEPARTMENT IMPOSED SANCTIONS ON A LAW FIRM FOR FAILING TO IMMEDIATELY NOTIFY THE APPELLATE COURT THAT A MATTER WITH A PENDING APPEAL HAD BEEN SETTLED (SECOND DEPT).
Law of Plaintiff’s Residence Applied to Action Alleging Injury from Use of Plaintiff’s Image and Voice (Video Clip) on a Television Show
IN THIS CHILD VICTIMS ACT PROCEEDING, THE CLAIM SUFFICIENTLY ALLEGED THE TIME WHEN THE ALLEGED SEXUAL ASSAULT TOOK PLACE; LEGAL CRITERIA EXPLAINED (SECOND 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

WHETHER THE BIG APPLE MAP PROVIDED NOTICE TO THE CITY OF THE DEFECTIVE CURB... EXCESSIVE INTERFERENCE BY THE JUDGE DEPRIVED DEFENDANT OF A FAIR TRIAL.