From Casetext: Smarter Legal Research

Lieber v. Sette-Juliano Construction Corp.

Appellate Division of the Supreme Court of New York, Second Department
Jun 3, 1996
228 A.D.2d 419 (N.Y. App. Div. 1996)

Opinion

June 3, 1996

Appeal from the Supreme Court, Kings County (Dowd, J.).


Ordered that the appeal from the order dated July 24, 1995, is dismissed, as that order was superseded by the order dated December 12, 1995, made upon reargument; and it is further,

Ordered that the order dated December 12, 1995, is affirmed insofar as reviewed; and it is further,

Ordered that the respondent is awarded one bill of costs.

The Supreme Court properly concluded that since the defendant URS Consultants, Inc. (hereinafter URS) appeared in this action during the 120-day period following its commencement, the action against URS should not have been dismissed for the plaintiff's failure to timely file proof of service ( see, CPLR 306-b [a]; Cerrito v. Galioto, 216 A.D.2d 265). Accordingly, the action as against URS was properly restored to the trial calendar. Rosenblatt, J.P., Sullivan, Copertino, Santucci and Goldstein, JJ., concur.


Summaries of

Lieber v. Sette-Juliano Construction Corp.

Appellate Division of the Supreme Court of New York, Second Department
Jun 3, 1996
228 A.D.2d 419 (N.Y. App. Div. 1996)
Case details for

Lieber v. Sette-Juliano Construction Corp.

Case Details

Full title:LEAH LIEBER, Respondent, v. SETTE-JULIANO CONSTRUCTION CORP., Defendant…

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

Date published: Jun 3, 1996

Citations

228 A.D.2d 419 (N.Y. App. Div. 1996)
643 N.Y.S.2d 420

Citing Cases

Pierno v. Adames

Although plaintiff's admitted failure to file proof of service does not warrant dismissal of the action,…

Pettus v. New York Eye & Ear Infirmary

The court finds that no such override has taken place. Although the appearance of a defendant within the 120…