You are here: / / DEFENDANT WAS MISNAMED IN THE COMPLAINT BUT WAS TIMELY SERVED; THE AMENDED...
, ,

DEFENDANT WAS MISNAMED IN THE COMPLAINT BUT WAS TIMELY SERVED; THE AMENDED COMPLAINT WITH THE CORRECT NAME, ALTHOUGH SERVED AFTER THE STATUTE OF LIMITATIONS HAD RUN, SHOULD NOT HAVE BEEN DISMISSED; THE AMENDED COMPLAINT SHOULD HAVE BEEN DEEMED TIMELY SERVED AND FILED NUNC PRO TUNC (SECOND DEPT).

The Second Department, reversing Supreme Court, determined the medical malpractice complaint should not have been dismissed. The original complaint misnamed defendant Mark Gennaro as Michael Gennaro. The amended complaint with the correct name was served after the statute of limitations had run. Pursuant to CPLR 305(c) the amended complaint should have been deemed timely served and filed nunc pro tunc:

“CPLR 305(c) authorizes the court, in its discretion, to ‘allow any summons or proof of service of a summons to be amended, if a substantial right of a party against whom the summons issued is not prejudiced'” … . “‘Where the motion is to cure a misnomer in the description of a party defendant, it should be granted even after the statute of limitations has run where (1) there is evidence that the correct defendant (misnamed in the original process) has in fact been properly served, and (2) the correct defendant would not be prejudiced by granting the amendment sought'” … . “While CPLR 305(c) may be used to cure a misnomer in the description of a party defendant, it cannot be used after the expiration of the statute of limitations as a device to add or substitute an entirely new defendant who was not properly served” … . “The amendment may be made nunc pro tunc” … .

Here, the evidence established that the defendant, misnamed as Michael Gennaro in the original summons and complaint, was properly served with process within 120 days after the action was timely commenced and, thus, the Supreme Court obtained jurisdiction over the defendant (see CPLR 306-b …). Moreover, there was no evidence that the defendant would be prejudiced by allowing the caption to be amended to correct the misnomer … . The defendant’s contention that the plaintiff was improperly attempting to name a new defendant after the expiration of the statute of limitations, instead of merely correcting a misnomer, is without merit … .  Brewster v North Shore/LIJ Huntington Hosp., 2023 NY Slip Op 05584, Second Dept 11-8-23

Practice Point: Here the defendant was misnamed in the original complaint and the corrected complaint was not served until after the statute of limitations had run. The amended complaint should have been deemed timely served and filed nunc pro tunc pursuant to CPLR 305(c).

 

You might also like
THE BANK DID NOT PROVE DEFENDANT’S DEFAULT IN THIS FORECLOSURE ACTION; THE AVERMENTS ABOUT DEFENDANT’S DEFAULT WERE BASED UPON THE AFFIANT’S REVIEW OF BUSINESS RECORDS; BECAUSE THE RECORDS WERE NOT ATTACHED, THE AFFIDAVIT WAS INADMISSIBLE HEARSAY (SECOND DEPT).
Court’s Failure to Conduct an Inquiry After Learning of a Juror’s Comments During Trial Indicating Her Lack of Impartiality Required Reversal
Several Similar Thefts from the Same Store Constituted a Single, Continuing Crime
Proof at Trial Did Not Sufficiently Pinpoint Time of the Alleged Sexual Offenses—Convictions Vacated
QUESTIONS OF FACT ABOUT DEFENDANT DRIVER’S COMPARATIVE NEGLIGENCE IN THIS BICYCLE-CAR COLLISION CASE, DEFENDANT’S SUMMARY JUDGMENT MOTION SHOULD NOT HAVE BEEN GRANTED (SECOND DEPT).
THE COURT’S INQUIRY ON MOTIONS TO DISMISS AN ARTICLE 78 PETITION, A COMPLAINT, AND/OR A REQUEST FOR A DECLARATORY JUDGMENT SHOULD RARELY GO BEYOND WHETHER, ASSUMING THE TRUTH OF THE ALLEGATIONS, A CAUSE OF ACTION HAS BEEN STATED (SECOND DEPT).
THE CONDOMINIUM BOARD OF MANAGERS PROPERLY APPLIED THE BUSINESS JUDGMENT RULE WHEN IT AUTHORIZED CONSTRUCTION WHICH NARROWED PLAINTIFF’S BOAT SLIP; THE DISSENT ARGUED THE BOARD FAILED TO SHOW THAT IT ACTED IN ACCORDANCE WITH THE CONDOMINIUM BYLAWS, WHICH IS REQUIRED BY THE BUSINESS JUDGMENT RULE (SECOND DEPT).
INFANT PLAINTIFF WAS INJURED WHEN HE INADVERTENTLY SLAPPED A DISPLAY CASE IN THE HALL OF A SCHOOL AND THE GLASS SHATTERED; THERE WAS EVIDENCE A SIMILAR INCIDENT HAD OCCURRED IN THE PAST AND SOME OF THE PANELS IN THE DISPLAY CASE WERE MADE OF SHATTERPROOF PLEXIGLASS; PLAINTIFF’S PREMISES-LIABILITY CAUSE OF ACTION 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 © 2026 New York Appellate Digest, Inc.
Site by CurlyHost | Privacy Policy

PLAINTIFF COULD NOT IDENTIFY THE CAUSE OF HIS STAIRWAY FALL BUT HE TESTIFIED... THE TRIPPING HAZARD IN A WALKWAY VIOLATED THE INDUSTRIAL CODE; PLAINTIFF ENTITLED...