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
EVIDENCE THAT THE A-FRAME LADDER WAS NOT SECURED AND WAS “IMPROPERLY PLACED” WARRANTED SUMMARY JUDGMENT IN THIS LADDER-FALL CASE ON THE LABOR LAW 240(1) CAUSE OF ACTION; THERE IS NO NEED TO DEMONSTRATE THE LADDER WAS DEFECTIVE (FOURTH DEPT).
PETITION SEEKING TO ANNUL A NEGATIVE DECLARATION UNDER THE STATE ENVIRONMENTAL QUALITY REVIEW ACT (SEQRA) CONCERNING A TRUCK STOP PROJECT PROPERLY DISMISSED FOR FAILURE TO EXHAUST ADMINISTRATIVE REMEDIES, TOWN PLANNING BOARD DID NOT ACT ARBITRARILY AND CAPRICIOUSLY WHEN IT FAILED TO FOLLOW A LOCAL LAW WHICH CONFLICTED WITH SEQRA (FOURTH DEPT).
People Did Not Meet Burden of Going Forward at Suppression Hearing
Defense Counsel’s Failure to Object to Considerable Testimony About Prior Consistent Statements Made by the Victim Concerning Alleged Sexual Abuse Did Not Constitute Ineffective Assistance of Counsel
THE STATUTE OF LIMITATIONS FOR THIS SLIP AND FALL CASE WAS SUSPENDED DURING THE COVID TOLLS, RENDERING THE ACTION TIMELY (FOURTH DEPT). ​
AN APPELLATE COURT CANNOT CONSIDER A MOTION NOT RULED UPON BELOW; MATTER REMITTED FOR A RULING ON DEFENDANT’S MOTION FOR A TRIAL ORDER OF DISMISSAL (FOURTH DEPT).
PRIME CONTRACTOR DID NOT CONTRACT WITH PLAINTIFF’S EMPLOYER, DID NOT SUPERVISE PLAINTIFF’S WORK AND DID NOT HAVE CONTROL OVER THE WORKSITE, ITS MOTION FOR SUMMARY JUDGMENT IN THIS LABOR LAW 241 (6) 200 AND COMMON LAW NEGLIGENCE ACTION SHOULD HAVE BEEN GRANTED (FOURTH DEPT).
ALTHOUGH DEFENDANT WAS A VOLUNTEER AMBULANCE DRIVER AND WAS RESPONDING TO A CALL AT THE TIME OF THE TRAFFIC ACCIDENT, DEFENDANT WAS DRIVING HIS OWN PERSONAL PICKUP TRUCK, WHICH WAS NOT AN AUTHORIZED EMERGENCY VEHICLE; THEREFORE THE “RECKLESS DISREGARD” STANDARD OF CARE DID NOT APPLY TO DEFENDANT (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 © 2026 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,...