From Casetext: Smarter Legal Research

Keary v. Great Atlantic & Pacific Tea Co.

Appellate Division of the Supreme Court of New York, First Department
Jul 28, 1983
96 A.D.2d 499 (N.Y. App. Div. 1983)

Opinion

July 28, 1983


Order entered June 29, 1982 in Supreme Court, Bronx County (Alfred J. Callahan, J.) which, inter alia, confirmed the referee's report and dismissed the action on the ground of the Statute of Limitations, unanimously reversed, upon the law, defendant's motion to dismiss the action as barred by the Statute of Limitations is denied and plaintiff's motion to strike that defense is granted, with costs. Plaintiff's process server acted on February 6, 1981, two days before the Statute of Limitations ran out for this false imprisonment action. Since service of the summons commenced the action, the only bar to its viability must be the validity of the service. The referee found that service had not been properly made, and that defendant had preserved its defense on this ground by asserting it in its answer of August 10, 1981. However, when defendant served an amended answer three days later, the defense of lack of personal jurisdiction was omitted. Since the amended answer supersedes in all respects the previous pleading ( Halmar Distrs. v Approved Mfg. Corp., 49 A.D.2d 841), defendant has waived the jurisdictional defense (CPLR 3211, subd [e]).

Concur — Ross, J.P., Carro, Asch, Milonas and Kassal, JJ.


Summaries of

Keary v. Great Atlantic & Pacific Tea Co.

Appellate Division of the Supreme Court of New York, First Department
Jul 28, 1983
96 A.D.2d 499 (N.Y. App. Div. 1983)
Case details for

Keary v. Great Atlantic & Pacific Tea Co.

Case Details

Full title:GEORGIA KEARY, Appellant, v. GREAT ATLANTIC PACIFIC TEA CO., INC., Sued…

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

Date published: Jul 28, 1983

Citations

96 A.D.2d 499 (N.Y. App. Div. 1983)

Citing Cases

Pop Int'l Galleries Inc. v. Swarts

Under the circumstances, the court must initially consider the merit of the proposed amended complaint and,…

Park v. Spivey's Trucking Rigging Company

We reject the plaintiffs' contention that the second answer was in fact an amended answer, thus superseding…