Learn About the Law
Get help with your legal needs
FindLaw’s Learn About the Law features thousands of informational articles to help you understand your options. And if you’re ready to hire an attorney, find one in your area who can help.
James DAVIS, Gary Davis, Joan Davis, Jeffrey Cohen, Bernard Cohen and Barbara Cohen, Respondents, v. Chad BOLLWEG, et al., Defendants, Steven Kenan, Appellant.
Supreme Court properly denied the motion of defendant Steven Kenan to dismiss the action against him based upon the untimely filing of proof of service (see, CPLR former 306-b [a] ). Plaintiffs' paralegal timely presented the original affidavit of service on Kenan pursuant to CPLR 308(2) to the Onondaga County Clerk's Office as an attachment to plaintiffs' application for an order permitting service of a summons and verified complaint on Kenan and other defendants by publication. Plaintiffs' paralegal submitted a Request for Judicial Intervention (RJI) and a $75 check to the County Clerk. The paralegal received a stamped copy of the RJI and was directed to file the application for the publication order directly with the Supreme Court Clerk's Office. The County Clerk failed to retain a copy of the application papers. The application was subsequently denied. Although the affidavits of service were returned to plaintiffs' counsel and never re-presented to the Onondaga County Clerk's Office, we agree with the court that, despite the fact that the original affidavits were not retained by the County Clerk, the initial timely presentation to the County Clerk met the filing requirement of CPLR former 306-b(a) (see, CPLR 304).
In light of our holding, it is not necessary to address Kenan's contention that the court improperly determined in the alternative that CPLR 2004 could be invoked to excuse a failure to file proof of service pursuant to CPLR former 306-b(a).
Order unanimously affirmed with costs.
MEMORANDUM:
Thank you for your feedback!
A free source of state and federal court opinions, state laws, and the United States Code. For more information about the legal concepts addressed by these cases and statutes visit FindLaw's Learn About the Law.
Decided: April 29, 1998
Court: Supreme Court, Appellate Division, Fourth Department, New York.
Search our directory by legal issue
Enter information in one or both fields (Required)
Harness the power of our directory with your own profile. Select the button below to sign up.
Learn more about FindLaw’s newsletters, including our terms of use and privacy policy.
Get help with your legal needs
FindLaw’s Learn About the Law features thousands of informational articles to help you understand your options. And if you’re ready to hire an attorney, find one in your area who can help.
Search our directory by legal issue
Enter information in one or both fields (Required)