You are here: / / FAILURE TO TIMELY MAIL THE SUMMONS AND COMPLAINT AFTER SERVICE AT DEFENDANT’S...

FAILURE TO TIMELY MAIL THE SUMMONS AND COMPLAINT AFTER SERVICE AT DEFENDANT’S BUSINESS AS REQUIRED BY CPLR 308 (2) IS A JURISDICTIONAL DEFECT WHICH IS NOT CURED BY LATE MAILING (SECOND DEPT).

The Second Department determined plaintiff’s failure to timely mail a copy of the summons and complaint after serving the documents at defendant’s place of business was a jurisdictional defect which was not cured by late mailing:

A mailing sent within the wrong time frame, like a mailing sent by the wrong method , increases the likelihood that a party will not receive proper notice of a legal proceeding. The first 20-day window set forth in CPLR 308(2) serves an important function. If the delivery and mailing required …  that statute are not made within a short time of one another, there is a greater likelihood that one or both sets of pleadings will be mislaid, or, at the very least, that confusion will arise as to how much time the defendant has to respond—both of which appear to have occurred here. Further, the requirement that an affidavit of service be filed within 20 days of the delivery or mailing, whichever is effected later, also serves an important function. Timely filing of the affidavit of service is designed to give notice as to the plaintiff’s claim of service and permit the defendant to calculate the time to answer. Where the affidavit of service claims that delivery but not mailing occurred within the 20-day period, yet the plaintiff intends to later claim that a timely mailing did occur, additional confusion is created, a defendant may be prejudiced by reliance upon the publicly filed affidavit which only partially disclosed the plaintiff’s claim of service, and such prejudice may preclude the prospect that the failure to file the affidavit could be cured … . Estate of Norman Perlman v Kelley, 2019 NY Slip Op 06475, Second Dept 9-11-19

 

You might also like
DEFENDANT ALLOWED PLAINTIFF’S DECEDENT, 18, TO DRIVE HIS LAMBORGHINI WHILE DEFENDANT WAS A PASSENGER; PLAINTIFF’S DECEDENT LOST CONTROL AT 180 MPH, STRUCK A GUARD RAIL, WAS EJECTED AND DIED FROM HIS INJURIES; THERE WAS A QUESTION OF FACT, RAISED BY PLAINTIFF’S EXPERT, WHETHER DEFENDANT HAD SPECIAL KNOWLEDGE WHICH RENDERED PLAINTIFF’S DECEDENT’S USE OF THE CAR UNREASONABLY DANGEROUS; THE NEGLIGENT ENTRUSTMENT CAUSES OF ACTION SHOULD NOT HAVE BEEN DISMISSED (SECOND DEPT).
ASSUMPTION OF RISK DEFENSE DID NOT APPLY TO STUDENT-ATHLETE’S PARTICIPATION IN UNSUPERVISED “HORSEPLAY;” SCHOOL’S SUMMARY JUDGMENT MOTION SHOULD NOT HAVE BEEN GRANTED.
Defendant Not Afforded Right to Testify Before Grand Jury—Indictment Dismissed
CPL 450.10 (1), WHICH PURPORTS TO PROHIBIT AN ‘EXCESSIVE SENTENCE’ APPEAL AFTER A GUILTY PLEA, IS UNCONSTITUTIONAL, DEFENDANT’S WAIVER OF APPEAL, HOWEVER, WAS VALID (SECOND DEPT).
THE ASSAULT SECOND CONVICTION WAS REVERSED BECAUSE PROOF A BAMBOO STICK WAS A “DANGEROUS INSTRUMENT” WAS LEGALLY INSUFFICIENT; ASSAULT THIRD CONVICTION VACATED AS AN INCLUSORY CONCURRENT COUNT OF ASSAULT SECOND (SECOND DEPT).
DEFENDANT IN THIS MURDER CASE MADE SERIOUS REQUESTS FOR NEW COUNSEL WHICH WERE SUMMARILY DENIED WITHOUT AN INQUIRY; DEFENDANT’S RIGHT TO COUNSEL WAS VIOLATED; NEW TRIAL BEFORE A DIFFERENT JUDGE ORDERED (SECOND DEPT).
Question of Fact Whether a Building Manager Owed a Duty to Plaintiff—Plaintiff, a Sidewalk Pedestrian, Was Struck by Window-Washing Equipment—The Window Washing Service Was an Independent Contractor Hired by the Building Manager—Question of Fact Raised Whether a Duty to the Plaintiff Ran from the Building Manager Because of the Inherently Dangerous Work the Independent Contractor Was Hired to Do and Because of the Nature of the Contract Between the Building Manager and the Building Owner—The Court Noted that the Property Owners Were Not Liable Because Ownership and Control of the Building on the Property Had Been Transferred (to the Building Owner)
Planning Board Should Not Have Added Conditions for Approval of Final Plat Plan

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

THE PEOPLE DID NOT SUBMIT SUFFICIENT PROOF THAT A PERIOD OF TIME SHOULD BE EXCLUDED... QUESTIONS OF FACT PRECLUDED SUMMARY JUDGMENT ON MOST (BUT NOT ALL) OF THE CAUSES...