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
DEFENDANT’S MOTION TO VACATE HIS CONVICTION BASED UPON INEFFECTIVE ASSISTANCE AND ACTUAL INNOCENCE SHOULD NOT HAVE BEEN DENIED WITHOUT A HEARING, DEFENDANT PRESENTED EVIDENCE DEFENSE COUNSEL NEVER SUBPOENAED A WITNESS (FOURTH DEPT).
50% FAULT SHOULD NOT HAVE BEEN APPORTIONED TO PLAINTIFF IN THIS WET-FLOOR SLIP AND FALL CASE; THE WATER ON THE FLOOR WAS NOT OPEN AND OBVIOUS AND THE WARNING SIGN WAS NOT VISIBLE (FOURTH DEPT).
FAILURE TO HOLD A SANDOVAL HEARING AND ALLOWING PRIOR CONSISTENT STATEMENTS TO BOLSTER THE COMPLAINING WITNESS’S TESTIMONY REQUIRED REVERSAL.
No Legal Duty Owed Independent of Contract—Negligence Cause of Action Dismissed
THE PATTERN JURY INSTRUCTIONS FOR TORTIOUS INTERFERENCE WITH PROSPECTIVE ECONOMIC ADVANTAGE ARE WRONG, THE INDEPENDENT CRIME OR TORT ELEMENT IS A FACTUAL QUESTION FOR THE JURY AND SHOULD NOT BE DECIDED AS A MATTER OF LAW BY THE COURT, MOTION TO SET ASIDE THE $5 MILLION VERDICT SHOULD HAVE BEEN GRANTED (FOURTH DEPT).
SUPREME COURT SHOULD NOT HAVE HELD AS A MATTER OF LAW THAT THE TRIGGERING EVENT FOR INSURANCE COVERAGE FOR ASBESTOS-INJURY IS THE FIRST EXPOSURE TO ASBESTOS AS OPPOSED TO EXPOSURE TO A CERTAIN LEVEL OF ASBESTOS (FOURTH DEPT).
THE JUDGE ADOPTED A DECISION DRAFTED BY COUNSEL AS THE FINAL DETERMINATION OF THE CASE AND THEREBY VITIATED THE PURPOSE SERVED BY JUDICIAL OPINIONS; THE FOURTH DEPARTMENT VACATED THE JUDGMENT (FOURTH DEPT).
Criteria for Setting Aside a Defense Verdict Not Met

Categories

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

Copyright © 2023 New York Appellate Digest, LLC
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,...