You are here: / / THE DEFENDANTS DID NOT RAISE A DEFECT IN SERVICE AS AN AFFIRMATIVE DEFENSE;...
,

THE DEFENDANTS DID NOT RAISE A DEFECT IN SERVICE AS AN AFFIRMATIVE DEFENSE; THE JUDGE SHOULD NOT HAVE RAISED THE ISSUE SUA SPONTE AND DISMISSED THE PROCEEDING ON THAT GROUND (SECOND DEPT). ​

The Second Department, reversing Supreme Court, determined the judge should not have, sua sponte, raised the propriety of service issue and dismissed the proceeding on that ground:

The Supreme Court should not have, sua sponte, dismissed the proceeding/action on the ground of a defect in service. Lack of personal jurisdiction is an affirmative defense that can be waived by, among other things, “appearing in an action, either formally or informally, without raising the defense of lack of personal jurisdiction in an answer or pre-answer motion to dismiss” … . “When a defendant participates in a lawsuit on the merits, he or she indicates an intention to submit to the court’s jurisdiction over the action, and by appearing informally in this manner, the defendant confers in personam jurisdiction on the court” … .

Since the respondents did not object to the Supreme Court’s jurisdiction over them in an answer or in their cross-motion pursuant to CPLR 3211(a)(1) and (7) to dismiss the petition/complaint, the court should not have, sua sponte, raised the issue of the propriety of service … . Further, the respondents waived any objection to the propriety of service by appearing in the proceeding/action and cross-moving to dismiss the petition/complaint without raising the defense of lack of personal jurisdiction … . Matter of Weiss v County of Suffolk, 2025 NY Slip Op 02210, Second Dept 4-16-25

Practice Point: Defective service is an affirmative defense which, if not raised by a party, is waived. A judge cannot raise and decide the issue sua sponte.

 

You might also like
NOTE HOLDER’S COMPLIANCE WITH NOTICE REQUIREMENTS OF RPAPL 1304 NOT DEMONSTRATED, MOTION FOR SUMMARY JUDGMENT IN THIS FORECLOSURE ACTION SHOULD NOT HAVE BEEN GRANTED (SECOND DEPT).
A TWO-FOOT DEEP TRENCH WAS NOT AN ELEVATION HAZARD OR A HAZARDOUS OPENING.
Action Should Not Have Been Dismissed Pursuant to CPLR 3211 (a)(4)—Action Was Not “Sufficiently Similar” to Pending Action
WARRANTLESS SEARCH OF DEFENDANT’S BACKPACK WAS NOT A VALID SEARCH INCIDENT TO ARREST, SEIZED WEAPON SHOULD HAVE BEEN SUPPRESSED (SECOND DEPT).
Because Defendant Was Negligent As a Matter of Law (Violation of Vehicle and Traffic Law), the Verdict In Favor of the Defendant Was Properly Set Aside
Criteria for Prohibition Explained
NEGLECT STEMMING FROM MOTHER’S MENTAL ILLNESS NOT PROVEN, FAMILY COURT REVERSED (SECOND DEPT).
BANK’S FAILURE TO COMPLY WITH COURT’S ORDER TO MOVE FOR SUMMARY JUDGMENT IN THIS FORECLOSURE ACTION WITHIN 60 DAYS DID NOT SUPPORT DISMISSAL FOR FAILURE TO PROSECUTE PURSUANT TO CPLR 3216 (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

HOME DEPOT RENTED A TRUCK TO A MAN WHO DROVE THE TRUCK INTO A CROWD OF PEDESTRIANS... CRIMINAL POSSESSION OF A WEAPON SECOND DEGREE AND CRIMINAL POSSESSION OF A FIREARM...