From Casetext: Smarter Legal Research

Cerrito v. Galioto

Supreme Court of New York, Appellate Division, Second Department
Jun 5, 1995
216 A.D.2d 265 (N.Y. App. Div. 1995)

Opinion


216 A.D.2d 265 627 N.Y.S.2d 767 Robert H. CERRITO, Respondent, v. Anthony GALIOTO, Appellant. Supreme Court of New York, Second Department June 5, 1995.

Anthony Galioto, Middle Village, pro se.

Gemelli & Rosenblum, Forest Hills (Jody A. Rudnick, of counsel), for respondent.

Before ROSENBLATT, J.P., and RITTER, COPERTINO and SANTUCCI, JJ.

MEMORANDUM BY THE COURT.

In an action to enforce a stipulation, the defendant appeals from an order of the Supreme Court, Queens County (Le Vine, J.), [627 N.Y.S.2d 768] entered April 27, 1994, which denied his motion to dismiss the action on the ground that the plaintiff failed to file proof of service.

ORDERED that the order is affirmed, with costs. According to CPLR 306-b(a), "[i]f proof of service is not filed and there has been no appearance by the defendant within [120 days after the date of filing of the summons and complaint] the action * * * shall be deemed dismissed as to the nonappearing party * * * without prejudice and without costs" (emphasis supplied). In this case, the defendant appeared by the service of an answer (see, CPLR 320[a] within 120 days after the filing of the summons and complaint, and this "obviated * * * the need for filing" (1 Weinstein-Korn-Miller N.Y.Civ.Prac. p 306-b.01). The defendant's argument that the court was ousted of its jurisdiction over him solely because of the plaintiff's failure to file proof of service is thus without merit.


Summaries of

Cerrito v. Galioto

Supreme Court of New York, Appellate Division, Second Department
Jun 5, 1995
216 A.D.2d 265 (N.Y. App. Div. 1995)
Case details for

Cerrito v. Galioto

Case Details

Full title:Cerrito v. Galioto

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

Date published: Jun 5, 1995

Citations

216 A.D.2d 265 (N.Y. App. Div. 1995)
627 N.Y.S.2d 767

Citing Cases

Nationstar Mortg. LLC v. Vedova

The defendant mortgagors have not proffering a legally sufficient explanation for the more than three year…