Opinion
April 24, 1992
Appeal from the Supreme Court, Oneida County, Tenney, J.
Present — Green, J.P., Pine, Balio, Boehm and Davis, JJ.
Order unanimously affirmed with costs. Memorandum: Supreme Court properly denied defendant's motion to dismiss the complaint upon Statute of Limitations grounds (see, CPLR 3211 [a] [5]). Plaintiffs' mailing of the summons and complaint to the Secretary of State within the three-year limitations period constituted commencement of the action for Statute of Limitations purposes against the nonresident defendant (see, Bartholomew v Padula, 171 A.D.2d 947; Metcalf v Cowburn, 44 A.D.2d 650; Glines v Muszynski, 15 A.D.2d 435). We further conclude that plaintiffs, by mailing a copy of the summons and complaint to defendant by certified mail, return receipt requested, substantially complied with the service-of-process requirements of Vehicle and Traffic Law § 253, thereby acquiring jurisdiction over defendant (see, Genovese v Sanaseverino, 26 Misc.2d 191; see also, Lederman v McLean Trucking Co., 41 A.D.2d 5). Defendant received the mailing and was fully apprised of the nature of the action commenced against him. Under the circumstances, plaintiffs' failure to include notice of service upon the Secretary of State in that mailing did not constitute a jurisdictional defect. Further, the failure to file the required documents with the County Clerk within the statutory 30-day period did not constitute a jurisdictional defect (Michaud v Lussier, 6 A.D.2d 746, affd 7 N.Y.2d 934; Hayuk v Hallock, 11 Misc.2d 1086), and Supreme Court properly exercised its discretion in permitting plaintiffs to file such papers nunc pro tunc (see, Bartholomew v Padula, 171 A.D.2d 947, supra).