From Casetext: Smarter Legal Research

Brown v. Marine Midland Bank

Appellate Division of the Supreme Court of New York, Fourth Department
Feb 2, 1996
224 A.D.2d 1016 (N.Y. App. Div. 1996)

Opinion

February 2, 1996

Appeal from the Supreme Court, Erie County, Notaro, J.

Present — Pine, J.P., Fallon, Wesley, Doerr and Davis, JJ.


Order insofar as appealed from unanimously reversed on the law without costs, cross motion granted and complaint dismissed. Memorandum: Supreme Court erred in denying the cross motion of defendant DiPizio Construction Co., Inc. (DiPizio) to dismiss plaintiffs' complaint against it. The failure to obtain leave of court to serve a supplemental summons and amended complaint to add DiPizio as an additional defendant constitutes a jurisdictional defect, requiring dismissal of plaintiffs' action against DiPizio (see, Youngs v. Kissing Bridge Ski Corp., 216 A.D.2d 967; Crook v. du Pont de Nemours Co. [appeal No. 2], 181 A.D.2d 1039, affd 81 N.Y.2d 807; see also, Dauernheim v. Lend-lease Cars, 202 A.D.2d 624).

Nor are plaintiffs entitled to recommence the action pursuant to CPLR 205 (a). Because plaintiffs' action was not properly commenced in a timely manner, plaintiffs may not take advantage of CPLR 205 (a) (see, Dreger v. New York State Thruway Auth., 81 N.Y.2d 721; Parker v. Mack, 61 N.Y.2d 114, 117; Markoff v. South Nassau Community Hosp., 61 N.Y.2d 283, 287-288).


Summaries of

Brown v. Marine Midland Bank

Appellate Division of the Supreme Court of New York, Fourth Department
Feb 2, 1996
224 A.D.2d 1016 (N.Y. App. Div. 1996)
Case details for

Brown v. Marine Midland Bank

Case Details

Full title:GEORGE W. BROWN et al., Respondents, v. MARINE MIDLAND BANK, N.A., et al.…

Court:Appellate Division of the Supreme Court of New York, Fourth Department

Date published: Feb 2, 1996

Citations

224 A.D.2d 1016 (N.Y. App. Div. 1996)
637 N.Y.S.2d 535

Citing Cases

Simon v. Kyrejko

The plaintiffs' failure to obtain leave of court to serve a supplemental summons and an amended complaint to…

Britt v. Buffalo Municipal Housing

That was error. Contrary to the contention of Rados and the apparent conclusion of the court, plaintiffs…