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
EVIDENCE PETITIONER HAD MADE A THREAT TO A PRISON EMPLOYEE WAS INSUFFICIENT, DETERMINATION ANNULLED (SECOND DEPT). ​
Procedure for Sentencing a Second Felony Offender Not Followed
Family Offense of Disorderly Conduct Not Proven—No Proof of Public Inconvenience, Annoyance, or Alarm
Motion for Voluntary Discontinuance Should Not Have Been Granted “With Prejudice”
THE SECOND DEPARTMENT HAD REVERSED ON APPEAL, DETERMINING THE COMPLAINT SHOULD HAVE BEEN DISMISSED; WHEN SUPREME COURT WROTE A JUDGMENT DISMISSING THE COMPLAINT BASED ON THE SECOND DEPARTMENT’S DECISION IT IMPROPERLY ADDED A SENTENCE WHICH WAS NOT IN THE DECISION; A JUDGMENT BASED UPON AN APPELLATE DECISION MUST STRICTLY CONFORM TO THE DECISION (SECOND DEPT).
POLICY EXCLUSION WAS AMBIGUOUS, INSURER HAD A DUTY TO DEFEND.
THE BANK DID NOT PROVE COMPLIANCE WITH THE NOTICE AND MAILING REQUIREMENTS OF RPAPL 1304 IN THIS FORECLOSURE ACTION (SECOND DEPT).
Effects of Taking Property “As Is,” the Implied Covenant of Fair Dealing, and Constructive Eviction Discussed

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...