You are here: / / FIVE-DAY EXTENSION FOR A RESPONSE TO AN ANSWER SERVED BY MAIL DOES NOT...

FIVE-DAY EXTENSION FOR A RESPONSE TO AN ANSWER SERVED BY MAIL DOES NOT APPLY TO THE SENDER’S 60-DAY PERIOD TO MOVE TO DISMISS (SECOND DEPT).

The Second Department determined serving the answer by mail did not increase to 65 days the statutory 60-day period for a motion to dismiss. The five-day “service by mail” extension applies to a response to service by mail, not to any time-periods which apply to the sender:

The Legislature did not intend CPLR 2103 (b) (2) as a means by which a party could, as a general matter, extend its own time to make a motion. Instead, the Legislature enacted the provision to give the party responding to service by mail the full amount of the “responding period” provided for the doing of an act … . * * *

In the situation presented here … a defendant will always have the statutory 60 days to move for dismissal under CPLR 3211 (e), regardless of how it chooses to serve its answer. There is no delay in the defendant’s time to make its motion due to papers being in transit, and there is no necessary intervening event between the defendant’s service of its answer and its ability to move under CPLR 3211 (e). We hold that CPLR 2103 (b) (2) does not give the defendant the option to extend that period by another five days, as the legislative intent behind CPLR 2103 (b) (2) was to give an additional five days to a responding party. HSBC Bank USA, N.A. v Maniatopoulos, 2019 NY Slip Op 06184 [175 AD3d 575], Second Dept 8-21-19

 

You might also like
THE NEWSPAPER’S FOIL REQUEST FOR POLICE DISCIPLINARY RECORDS, INCLUDING RECORDS OF UNSUBSTANTIATED ALLEGATIONS AND RECORDS CREATED BEFORE THE REPEAL OF CIVIL RIGHTS LAW 50-A, SHOULD HAVE BEEN GRANTED (SECOND DEPT).
Hospital Generally Not Liable for Negligence of Private Attending Physician.
Criteria for Preemption by Martin Act
THE PLANNING BOARD DID NOT HAVE THE AUTHORITY TO WAIVE OR IGNORE THE REQUIREMENTS OF THE VILLAGE ZONING CODE; THE SPECIAL USE PERMIT SHOULD NOT HAVE BEEN ISSUED AND THE SITE PLAN SHOULD NOT HAVE BEEN APPROVED (SECOND DEPT). ​
IN A SLIP AND FALL, PROOF OF GENERAL CLEANING PRACTICES DOES NOT DEMONSTRATE A LACK OF CONSTRUCTIVE NOTICE OF THE ALLEGED DANGEROUS CONDITION; ONLY PROOF THE AREA WAS INSPECTED OR CLEANED CLOSE IN TIME TO THE FALL WILL SUFFICE (SECOND DEPT).
PLAINTIFF SHOULD NOT HAVE BEEN ALLOWED TO CONFORM THE PLEADINGS TO THE PROOF RE: PIERCING THE CORPORATE VEIL; DEFENDANT WAS PREJUDICED BY THE FAILURE TO PLEAD THE SUPPORTING ALLEGATIONS (SECOND DEPT). ​
Child’s Out-of-Court Statements Corroborated by Child Abuse Expert/Hearsay Provided Adequate Basis for Finding of Abuse
PLAINTIFF BICYCLIST STRUCK THE DOOR OF DEFENDANT’S VAN AFTER DEFENDANT HAD OPENED THE DOOR; DEFENDANT RAISED QUESTIONS OF FACT ABOUT WHETHER HE HAD OPENED THE DOOR SAFELY AND WHETHER PLAINTIFF WAS COMPARATIVELY NEGLIGENT; PLAINTIFF’S MOTION FOR SUMMARY JUDGMENT SHOULD NOT HAVE BEEN GRANTED AND DEFENDANT’S COMPARATIVE NEGLIGENCE AFFIRMATIVE DEFENSE SHOULD NOT HAVE BEEN DISMISSED (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

THE NYC ADMINISTRATIVE RULES PLACING CERTAIN RESTRICTIONS ON EXPRESSIVE MATTER... PLAINTIFF WAS WALKING IN THE CROSSWALK WHEN SHE WAS STRUCK BY DEFENDANT’S...