JUDGE SHOULD NOT, SUA SPONTE, HAVE RAISED ISSUES ABOUT THE ADEQUACY OF SERVICE BY MAIL WHICH WERE NOT RAISED OR ADDRESSED BY THE PARTIES; DEFENDANTS’ MOTION TO DISMISS THE ORIGINAL COMPLAINT FOR LACK OF JURISDICTION SHOULD NOT HAVE BEEN GRANTED; AMENDED COMPLAINT, FOR WHICH LEAVE OF COURT WAS NOT SOUGHT, WAS A NULLITY (SECOND DEPT). ​

The Second Department, reversing (modifying) Supreme Court, determined that the judge should not have raised, sua sponte, issues not raised by the parties in granting defendants’ (the Wirths’) motion to dismiss the complaint for lack of personal jurisdiction. The process server filed an affidavit stating that the summons and complaint had been timely mailed to defendants. The affidavit did not state that the envelope was marked “personal and confidential” or that the envelope indicated it was from an attorney. There was no proof the envelope was not properly marked and the defendants had not raised these issues. The defendants merely asserted they never received the mailing. The Second Department also determined the amended complaint, adding additional parties, was a nullity because the court did not grant leave to amend:

Given that the Wirths argued that they did not receive the summons and complaint in the mail, the Supreme Court should not have determined, sua sponte, that jurisdiction was not acquired over the Wirths because the process server did not attest that the mailed copies of the summons and complaint were contained in an envelope bearing the legend “personal and confidential” and not indicating on the outside thereof that the communication is from an attorney or concerns an action against the person to be served (see CPLR 308[2] …). Courts are “not in the business of blindsiding litigants,” who expect the courts to decide issues on rationales advanced by the parties, not arguments that were never made … . By raising the CPLR 308(2) envelope requirement on its own, the court deprived the plaintiffs of the opportunity to show compliance with that requirement. …

CPLR 3025(a) provides that a “party may amend his [or her] pleading once without leave of court within twenty days after its service, or at any time before the period for responding to it expires, or within twenty days after service of a pleading responding to it.” A plaintiff’s failure to seek leave pursuant to CPLR 1003 to add a new defendant is a jurisdictional defect, and an amended complaint that is not filed in accordance with CPLR 1003 and 3025 is a legal nullity … . Hulse v Wirth, 2019 NY Slip Op 06483, Second Dept 9-11-19