You are here: / / AN ATTEMPT TO SERVE WALTER WITKOWSKI JR AT THE ADDRESS OF WALTER WITKOWSKI...

AN ATTEMPT TO SERVE WALTER WITKOWSKI JR AT THE ADDRESS OF WALTER WITKOWSKI SR DID NOT CHANGE THE FACT THAT PLAINTIFF INTENDED TO SERVE JUNIOR, SERVICE UPON JUNIOR WITHIN THE 120 DAY SERVICE PERIOD, BUT AFTER THE STATUTE OF LIMITATIONS HAD RUN, WAS VALID (FOURTH DEPT).

The Fourth Department, in a full-fledged opinion by Justice DeMoyer, reversing Supreme Court, determined Walter Witkowski, Jr., not Walter Witkowski, Sr., was the party plaintiff intended to serve in this traffic accident case. An attempt to serve was made at senior’s house within the statute of limitations. Before the expiration of the 120 day service period, but after the expiration of the statute of limitations, junior was served at the correct address:

​

CPLR 306-b requires service of the summons and complaint upon the defendant—i.e., Junior and only Junior—”within [120] days after the commencement of the action.” And that is precisely what occurred here. Junior freely concedes that he was served with the summons and complaint in November 2013, well within the statutory deadline for effecting service (which would have expired in February 2014). Moreover, there is no dispute that the November 2013 service constituted good and valid service under CPLR 308 (2). Junior—the only defendant in the case—was thus properly served … .

True, it took plaintiff two separate tries to properly serve Junior. As noted above, plaintiff’s first attempt at serving Junior in October 2013 was admittedly defective under CPLR 308 (2) because the commencement papers were delivered to an address where Junior did not reside (i.e., Senior’s house). But this is inconsequential. Plaintiff cured his defective service by effecting unquestionably proper service within 120 days of commencement, and it is black letter law that “plaintiff had the absolute statutory right to effect valid service at any point within the 120-day period [afforded by CPLR 306-b]” … .Service, after all, is not a “one strike and you’re out” game. Martin v Witkowski, 2017 NY Slip Op 09014, Fourth Dept 12-22-17

CIVIL PROCEDURE (AN ATTEMPT TO SERVE WALTER WITKOWSKI JR AT THE ADDRESS OF WALTER WITKOWSKI SR DID NOT CHANGE THE FACT THAT PLAINTIFF INTENDED TO SERVE JUNIOR, SERVICE UPON JUNIOR WITHIN THE 120 DAY SERVICE PERIOD, BUT AFTER THE STATUTE OF LIMITATIONS HAD RUN, WAS VALID (FOURTH DEPT))/SERVICE OF PROCESS (AN ATTEMPT TO SERVE WALTER WITKOWSKI JR AT THE ADDRESS OF WALTER WITKOWSKI SR DID NOT CHANGE THE FACT THAT PLAINTIFF INTENDED TO SERVE JUNIOR, SERVICE UPON JUNIOR WITHIN THE 120 DAY SERVICE PERIOD, BUT AFTER THE STATUTE OF LIMITATIONS HAD RUN, WAS VALID (FOURTH DEPT))/NAMES (SERVICE OF PROCESS, FATHER SON WITH SAME NAME, AN ATTEMPT TO SERVE WALTER WITKOWSKI JR AT THE ADDRESS OF WALTER WITKOWSKI SR DID NOT CHANGE THE FACT THAT PLAINTIFF INTENDED TO SERVE JUNIOR, SERVICE UPON JUNIOR WITHIN THE 120 DAY SERVICE PERIOD, BUT AFTER THE STATUTE OF LIMITATIONS HAD RUN, WAS VALID (FOURTH DEPT))/CPLR 306-b  (AN ATTEMPT TO SERVE WALTER WITKOWSKI JR AT THE ADDRESS OF WALTER WITKOWSKI SR DID NOT CHANGE THE FACT THAT PLAINTIFF INTENDED TO SERVE JUNIOR, SERVICE UPON JUNIOR WITHIN THE 120 DAY SERVICE PERIOD, BUT AFTER THE STATUTE OF LIMITATIONS HAD RUN, WAS VALID (FOURTH DEPT))

You might also like
STONE WALL ABUTTING A SIDEWALK IS NOT A FEATURE CONSTRUCTED ON THE SIDEWALK, THE SPECIAL USE DOCTRINE THEREFORE DID NOT APPLY, HERE THE WALL OBSTRUCTED PLAINTIFF BICYCLIST’S VIEW AND PLAINTIFF WAS STRUCK BY A CAR BACKING ACROSS THE SIDEWALK, PROPERTY OWNER OWED NO DUTY TO PLAINTIFF.
DEFENDANT-ATTORNEY DEMONSTRATED THE RETAINER AGREEMENT IN THE DRUNK-DRIVING AND VEHICULAR HOMICIDE CASE WAS NOT PROCEDURALLY UNCONSCIONABLE (FOURTH DEPT).
RELEASE SIGNED BY ONE OF THE BENEFICIARIES OF THE WILL, RELEASING THE EXECUTOR FROM LIABILITY STEMMING FROM THE ADMINISTRATION OF THE ESTATE, WAS NOT VALID BECAUSE THE BENEFICIARY WAS NOT FULLY INFORMED ABOUT THE VALUE OF THE SECURITIES IN THE ESTATE, AND THE EFFECTS OF LEAVING A TRUST UNFUNDED, SURROGATE’S COURT IMPROPERLY PLACED THE BURDEN OF DEMONSTRATING THE RELEASE WAS INVALID ON THE BENEFICIARY (FOURTH DEPT).
Demand for Jury Trial Should Not Have Been Struck Despite Request for a “Declaration” in the Complaint—Crux of the Case Was a Request for Monetary Relief
DEFENDANT MADE A LEFT TURN IN FRONT OF AN ONCOMING CAR IN VIOLATION OF VEHICLE AND TRAFFIC LAW, PLAINTIFF ENTITLED TO SUMMARY JUDGMENT (FOURTH DEPT).
PLAINTIFFS SUED A FOSTER-CHILD PLACEMENT SERVICE FOR FRAUD AND NEGLIGENCE AFTER THE FOSTER CHILD SEXUALLY ASSAULTED PLAINTIFFS’ BIOLOGICAL CHILD; THE FRAUD ACTION WAS NOT TIME-BARRED BECAUSE THE PLACEMENT SERVICE’S MERE KNOWLEDGE OF THE FOSTER CHILD’S SEXUAL BEHAVIOR IN 2008 DID NOT START THE SIX-YEAR STATUTE OF LIMITATIONS, AND THE NEGLIGENCE ACTION WAS SUPPORTED BY A DUTY OWED TO PLAINTIFFS’ BIOLOGICAL CHILD (FOURTH DEPT).
PLAINTIFF FELL WHEN HE ATTEMPTED TO LEAVE A TRAILER THROUGH THE EXIT WHICH DID NOT HAVE A STAIRWAY ATTACHED, DEFENDANTS’ MOTION FOR SUMMARY JUDGMENT ON THE LABOR LAW 240 (1) AND 200 CAUSES OF ACTION SHOULD NOT HAVE BEEN GRANTED (FOURTH DEPT).
THE MAJORITY CONCLUDED PLAINTIFF WAS DOING ROUTINE MAINTENANCE WHICH WAS NOT PART OF A CONSTRUCTION OR RENOVATION PROJECT WHEN HE WAS ELECTROCUTED AND FELL FROM A LADDER; THEREFORE THE LABOR LAW 240(1) AND 241(6) CAUSES OF ACTION WERE DISMISSED; THE TWO-JUSTICE DISSENT ARGUED PLAINTIFF WAS “CLEANING” WITHIN THE MEANING OF LABOR LAW 240(1) AND WAS DOING CONSTRUCTION OR RENOVATION WORK WITHIN THE MEANING OF LABOR LAW 241(6) (FOURTH 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

MOTION TO AMEND THE COMPLAINT SHOULD HAVE BEEN GRANTED, CRITERIA EXPLAINED,... TENANT DID NOT COUNTERCLAIM FOR ATTORNEY’S FEES IN THE EVICTION PROCEEDINGS,...