Summary
In Roth, however, the summons with notice stated only general “violations” of various named statutes and required “defendants to guess the precise claims against them.” Id.
Summary of this case from Murillo-Roman v. The Pension Bds.-United Church of ChristOpinion
No. 296.
April 14, 2009.
Order, Supreme Court, New York County (Leland G. DeGrasse, J.), entered November 30, 2007, which granted defendants' motions to dismiss the complaint for lack of personal jurisdiction, unanimously affirmed, without costs.
Pryor Cashman LLP, New York (Joshua Zuckerberg of counsel), for appellants.
Andrew M. Cuomo, Attorney General, New York (Richard O. Jackson of counsel), for State University of New York, SUNY State College of Optometry, Steven H. Schwartz, Mitchell Dul and Richard Weber, respondents.
Manatt Phelps Phillips, LLP, New York (Gregory A. Clarick of counsel), for Alden N. Haffner, respondent.
Before: Tom, J.P., Andrias, Buckley and Moskowitz, JJ.
The summons described the nature of this action as "violations of federal, New York State, and New York City human rights laws, including but not limited to" various named statutes. Since numerous potential causes of action may be brought under these statutes, the summons left defendants to guess the precise claims against them ( see Scaringi v Broome Realty Corp., 191 AD2d 223). In thus failing to comply with the notice requirements of CPLR 305 (b), the summons was jurisdictionally defective ( Wells v Mount Sinai Hosp. Med. Ctr, 196 AD2d 749), and as such could not be amended ( see Alexander, Practice Commentaries, McKinney's Cons Laws of NY, Book 7B, CPLR C305:4).