Summary
In Pronti v. Hogan (278 AD2d 841), the Court held, in the absence of prejudice shown to the defendant, the lower court did not err in denying defendant's motion to strike the summons and complaint based upon a violation of the signature requirement set forth in 22 NYCRR 130-1.1a.
Summary of this case from Mtr. of Edward Shapiro, P.COpinion
December 27, 2000.
Appeal from Order of Supreme Court, Erie County, Flaherty , J. — Dismiss Pleading.
PRESENT: GREEN, J.P., HAYES, HURLBUTT, KEHOE AND BALIO, JJ.
Order unanimously affirmed with costs.
Memorandum:
In the absence of any showing of confusion or prejudice to defendant, Supreme Court did not err in denying defendant's motion to strike the summons and complaint on the ground that they were not signed in accordance with the requirement set forth in 22 NYCRR 130-1.1a (a) ( see, CPLR 20 01; cf., Kovilic Constr. Co. v. Missbrenner, 106 F.3d 768, 772; Price v. United States Navy, 39 F.3d 1011, 1014-1015 ; United States v. Kasuboski, 834 F.2d 1345, 1348-1349). The purposes of the rule are furthered where, as here, the court exercises its discretion to permit plaintiff leave to file and serve a properly signed pleading.