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.
Grace JORDAN, Individually and as Limited Administratrix of the Estate of Nabil M. Ibrahem, Deceased, Appellant, v. LEHIGH CONSTRUCTION GROUP, INC., et al., Defendants, The Viking Corporation, Respondent.
Plaintiff commenced this action to recover damages for the wrongful death of Nabil M. Ibrahem resulting from a fire at the chemical plant where he was employed. The complaint alleges that defendant Viking Automatic Sprinkler Company (VASC) was responsible for the manufacture, design and/or installation of the automatic sprinkler system at the plant. After service of the summons and complaint on VASC at its principal place of business in Roseville, Minnesota, VASC advised plaintiff's attorney that it had no connection to the sprinkler system at the plant where plaintiff's decedent died. Plaintiff then served the summons and complaint on The Viking Corporation (Viking) at its principal place of business in Hastings, Michigan. In a letter accompanying the service of process, plaintiff's attorney advised Viking that it had been incorrectly named as VASC.
Supreme Court properly granted the motion of Viking to dismiss the complaint against it pursuant to CPLR 3211(a)(8) and properly denied plaintiff's cross motion to amend the summons and complaint to name Viking as the correct defendant pursuant to CPLR 305(c) and 2001. “This is not a case where a party is misnamed (see, Medina v. City of New York, 167 A.D.2d 268, 561 N.Y.S.2d 768; Ober v. Rye Town Hilton, 159 A.D.2d 16, 557 N.Y.S.2d 937); rather it is a case where the plaintiff seeks to add or substitute a party defendant (see, Reid v. Niagara Mach. & Tool Co., 170 A.D.2d 662, 567 N.Y.S.2d 83; Creative Cabinet Corp. v. Future Visions Computer Store, 140 A.D.2d 483, 528 N.Y.S.2d 596; Polizzano v. Gotham Constr. Corp., 47 A.D.2d 48, 365 N.Y.S.2d 186)” (Ospina v. VIMM Corp., 203 A.D.2d 440, 440-441, 610 N.Y.S.2d 574, lv. denied 84 N.Y.2d 802, 617 N.Y.S.2d 136, 641 N.E.2d 157). Thus, plaintiff failed to obtain jurisdiction over Viking, and relief pursuant to CPLR 305(c) and 2001 is not available (see, Security Mut. Ins. Co. v. Black & Decker Corp., 255 A.D.2d 771, 680 N.Y.S.2d 287; Potamianos v. Convenient Food Mart, 197 A.D.2d 734, 735-736, 602 N.Y.S.2d 702).
Order unanimously affirmed without costs.
MEMORANDUM:
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: March 19, 1999
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)