You are here: / / FAILURE TO COMPLY WITH THE SERVICE-OF-PROCESS REQUIREMENTS IN CPLR 308...
,

FAILURE TO COMPLY WITH THE SERVICE-OF-PROCESS REQUIREMENTS IN CPLR 308 AND 311 ARE JURISDICTIONAL DEFECTS, NOT “TECHNICAL” DEFECTS WHICH CAN BE OVERLOOKED PURSUANT TO CPLR 2001 (SECOND DEPT).

The Second Department, reversing Supreme Court, determined the incarcerated plaintiff’s failure to comply with the service of process requirements in CPLR 308(2) and 311 were jurisdictional defects which could not be overlooked by the judge pursuant to CPLR 2001. CPLR 2001, which allows a court to cure a “technical” defect in effecting service, presupposes the court has acquired jurisdiction:

“‘The court’s ability to apply CPLR 2001 . . . presupposes that the court has acquired jurisdiction'” … . Thus, “CPLR 2001 may be used to cure only a ‘technical infirmity'” in effecting service … . “‘In deciding whether a defect in service is merely technical, courts must be guided by the principle of notice to the defendant—notice that must be reasonably calculated, under all the circumstances, to apprise interested parties of the pendency of the action and afford them an opportunity to present their objections'” … . “Defendant’s actual receipt of the summons and complaint is not dispositive of the efficacy of service” … .

Here, notwithstanding the plaintiff’s status as an incarcerated pro se litigant, the plaintiff’s failure to comply with the personal delivery requirements of CPLR 308(2) and CPLR 311, or to effect the requisite mailings within the required time period under CPLR 308(2) are jurisdictional defects that the Supreme Court may not overlook pursuant to CPLR 2001 … . Baptiste v County of Suffolk, 2025 NY Slip Op 04618, Second Dept 8-13-25

Practice Point: CPLR 2001, which allows the cure of “technical” defects in the service of process, does not apply to “jurisdictional” defects such as failing to comply with the requirements in CPLR 308 and 311.

 

You might also like
Test for Sufficiency of Evidence of Accessorial Liability Is Same As Test for Sufficiency of Circumstantial Evidence
THE JUDGE HAD A COURT OFFICER COMMUNICATE WITH THE JURY ABOUT A SUBSTANTIVE MATTER OUTSIDE OF THE DEFENDANT’S PRESENCE; DEFENSE COUNSEL DID NOT OBJECT; CONVICTION REVERSED (SECOND DEPT). ​
PLAINTIFF BANK DID NOT DEMONSTRATE IT HAD STANDING TO BRING THE FORECLOSURE ACTION (SECOND DEPT).
INSUFFICIENT EVIDENCE TO SUPPORT PHYSICAL INJURY ELEMENT OF ASSAULT THIRD, INSUFFICIENT EVIDENCE TO WARRANT SENTENCING AS A PERSISTENT FELONY OFFENDER.
Cross-Examination About Omission from Witness’ Statement to Police Should Have Been Allowed
PLAINTIFF ALLEGED SHE WAS FIRED AFTER REJECTING THE SEXUAL ADVANCES OF HER MANAGER IN THIS HUMAN RIGHTS LAW EMPLOYMENT DISCRIMINATION ACTION; PLAINTIFF WAS ENTITLED TO DISCLOSURE OF THE RECORDS OF OTHER EMPLOYEES WHO ENGAGED IN THE CONDUCT FOR WHICH PLAINTIFF WAS OSTENSIBLY FIRED (TARDINESS) (SECOND DEPT).
Question of Fact Re: Plaintiff’s Comparative Fault Precludes Summary Judgment—Supreme Court Erroneously Granted Summary Judgment to Plaintiff “To the Extent … Defendant Is Liable”
PLAINTIFF AND DEFENDANTS OWN ADJOINING LOTS ORIGINALLY CONVEYED BY THE SAME GRANTOR WITH A RESTRICTION ALLOWING ONLY ONE RESIDENCE PER LOT; PLAINTIFF HAD THE REQUISITE “VERTICAL PRIVITY” TO ENFORCE THE RESTRICTION WHEN DEFENDANTS SOUGHT TO SUBDIVIDE THEIR LOT; DEFENDANTS RAISED A QUESTION OF FACT WHETHER THE COVENANT WAS UNENFORCEABLE DUE TO RPAPL 1951 BECAUSE THE AREA HAD CHANGED (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

PLAINTIFFS REQUESTED GENERAL LIABILITY INSURANCE WHICH WAS PROCURED BY THE BROKER;... DEFENDANTS RELIED ON A STATEMENT TRANSLATED FROM SPANISH ATTRIBUTED TO PLAINTIFF...