From Casetext: Smarter Legal Research

Sahinis v. Brunswick Hospital Center

Appellate Division of the Supreme Court of New York, Second Department
Aug 23, 1999
264 A.D.2d 474 (N.Y. App. Div. 1999)

Opinion

August 23, 1999.

Appeal from the Supreme Court, Suffolk County (Costello, J.).


Ordered that the order is affirmed insofar as appealed from, with costs.

On October 24, 1996, the plaintiff filed a summons and complaint naming four defendants, including "Patrick Ford, M.D.", a misnomer for defendant-appellant Patricia Ford, M.D. The plaintiff later amended the summons and the complaint, without leave of the court, so as to name Patricia Ford, M.D. instead of Patrick Ford, M.D. The plaintiff then served papers which were clearly marked "amended summons" and "amended complaint" on Dr. Ford on January 10, 1997, and timely filed proof of service.

The Supreme Court denied Dr. Ford's subsequent motion to dismiss, because Dr. Ford had not asserted an appropriate affirmative defense in her answer, and had thus waived her objection to the plaintiffs having amended the summons and complaint without leave of the court ( see, Tarallo v. Gottesman, 204 A.D.2d 303). Dr. Ford appeals, and we affirm insofar as appealed from.

Whatever irregularity there might have been in connection with the technical variation between the original summons and complaint on file, and the amended summons and complaint later served, was waived by Dr. Ford when she failed to raise it as an affirmative defense, and proceeded to litigate the matter on the merits ( see, Matter of Fry v. Village of Tarrytown, 89 N.Y.2d 714; Nardi v. Hirsch, 250 A.D.2d 361).

In any case, from the content of the original complaint, it would have been clear that "Patrick" was simply a misnomer which would have been subject to correction ( see, CPLR 305 [a]; Air Tite Mfg. v. Acropolis Assocs., 202 A.D.2d 1067; Ober v. Rye Town Hilton, 159 A.D.2d 16). It was not necessary for the summons and complaint on file to be the mirror image of the summons and complaint later served ( see, e.g. Gamiel v. Sullivan Liapakis, 259 A.D.2d 385); It was sufficient for the complaint filed to conform in all important respects with the complaint later served ( see, Nardi v. Hirsch, supra).

Mangano, P. J., O'Brien, Sullivan and Goldstein, JJ., concur.


Summaries of

Sahinis v. Brunswick Hospital Center

Appellate Division of the Supreme Court of New York, Second Department
Aug 23, 1999
264 A.D.2d 474 (N.Y. App. Div. 1999)
Case details for

Sahinis v. Brunswick Hospital Center

Case Details

Full title:PETER SAHINIS, Respondent, v. BRUNSWICK HOSPITAL CENTER et al.…

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

Date published: Aug 23, 1999

Citations

264 A.D.2d 474 (N.Y. App. Div. 1999)
694 N.Y.S.2d 450

Citing Cases

Holster v. Ross

In these circumstances, the issue is not whether the plaintiff should be permitted to add the intended…

Smith v. State

In Moran v Hurst (32 AD3d 909 [2d Dept 2006]), for example, the Court held that "by retaining the amended…