You are here: / / FAILURE TO FILE PROOF OF SERVICE WITHIN TWENTY DAYS OF DELIVERY OR MAILING...

FAILURE TO FILE PROOF OF SERVICE WITHIN TWENTY DAYS OF DELIVERY OR MAILING OF THE SUMMONS IS NOT A JURISDICTIONAL DEFECT WHICH DEPRIVES THE COURT OF JURISDICTION OVER THE SERVED PARTY (SECOND DEPT). ​

The Second Department, reversing Supreme Court, determined the failure to file proof of service within twenty days of delivery or mailing of the summons does not negate the validity of the service, i.e., the failure to file does not deprive the court of jurisdiction over the defendant:

“Where, as here, service was made pursuant to CPLR 308(2), ‘proof of such service shall be filed with the clerk of the court designated in the summons within twenty days of either such delivery or mailing, whichever is effected later,’ and ‘service shall be complete ten days after such filing'” … . “Nevertheless, [t]he [*2]purpose of requiring filing of proof of service, along with the 10-day grace period, pertains solely to the time within which a defendant must answer, and does not relate to the jurisdiction acquired by service of the summons” … . * * *

… [T]he defendants failed to rebut the presumption of proper service … which was established by the plaintiff’s process server’s affidavit … . Contrary to the defendants’ contention, the plaintiff’s “failure to timely file proof of service [wa]s a mere procedural irregularity, not a jurisdictional defect” … .Palma v Apatow, 2024 NY Slip Op 04465, Second Dept 9-18-24

Practice Point: Failure to file proof of service of the summons within twenty days does not invalidate the service.

 

You might also like
PROSECUTOR’S QUESTIONING DEFENDANT ABOUT AN ADMISSION ALLEGEDLY MADE TO HIS ATTORNEY REQUIRED REVERSAL IN THE INTEREST OF JUSTICE.
Obstructing Governmental Administration Conviction Reversed—Police Not Engaged in “Authorized Conduct”
PLAINTIFF, WHO LOST HIS JOB AFTER HIS MORTGAGE HAD BEEN APPROVED AND THE MORTGAGE CONTINGENCY IN THE PURCHASE CONTRACT WAS SATISFIED, WAS ENTITLED TO THE RETURN OF THE DEPOSIT, THE REVOCATION OF THE MORTGAGE COMMITMENT WAS NOT DUE TO BAD FAITH ON PLAINTIFF’S PART (SECOND DEPT).
PLAINTIFF’S FALL FROM A LADDER OCCURRED DURING ROUTINE MAINTENANCE AND THEREFORE WAS NOT ACTIONABLE PURSUANT TO LABOR LAW 240 (1) (SECOND DEPT).
THE PRIOR APPELLATE DECISION DIRECTING THE COLLECTION OF MORE EVIDENCE IS THE LAW OF THE CASE; THE DIRECTION WAS NOT COMPLIED WITH BY SUPREME COURT UPON REMITTAL (SECOND DEPT).
THE BANK’S FAILURE TO REJECT THE LATE ANSWER WITHIN 15 DAYS WAIVED THE LATE SERVICE AND DEFAULT (SECOND DEPT).
Material Misrepresentation Justified Rescission of Policy
THE FACT THAT THE SCHOOL WAS AWARE OF THE PETITIONERS’ CHILD’S INJURY AT THE TIME IT OCCURRED DOES NOT MEAN THE SCHOOL HAD TIMELY KNOWLEDGE OF THE POTENTIAL LAWSUIT; PETITIONERS’ APPLICATION TO DEEM A LATE NOTICE OF CLAIM TIMELY SERVED SHOULD NOT HAVE BEEN GRANTED (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

THE COVID-19 TOLLS AND THE COURT’S DELAY IN SIGNING THE ORDER TO SHOW... PLAINTIFF’S MOTION FOR LEAVE TO SERVE A SUPPLEMENTAL BILL OF PARTICULARS...