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.
Mady MOUSTAFA, etc., Appellant, v. JAMAICA HOSPITAL MEDICAL CENTER, Respondent.
In an action, inter alia, to recover damages for wrongful death, the plaintiff appeals, as limited by her brief, from so much of an order of the Supreme Court, Queens County (Hart, J.), dated April 29, 2002, as granted that branch of the defendant's motion which was to dismiss the complaint for lack of personal jurisdiction.
ORDERED that the order is affirmed insofar as appealed from, with costs.
In its answer to the complaint in this action the defendant raised the affirmative defense of lack of service of process, and then moved pursuant to CPLR 3211 to dismiss the complaint, inter alia, for lack of personal jurisdiction on that and other grounds.
On the same day that the answer was served, and after such service, the plaintiff's counsel faxed to the defense a copy of the process server's affidavit, attesting that the summons had been served on the defendant. Over 60 days later, the plaintiff's counsel informed his adversary that, in fact, no summons had been served.
The Supreme Court correctly dismissed the complaint for lack of service of process (see Cuccia v. Weiner & Assocs., 234 A.D.2d 26, 650 N.Y.S.2d 168). We reject the plaintiff's contention that the defendant waived its defense of lack of service by failing to move to dismiss the complaint on that ground within 60 days of serving its answer (see CPLR 3211[e] ). Under the circumstances of this case, we conclude that the plaintiff should be equitably estopped from asserting the time limit of CPLR 3211(e) (see Brown v. City of New York, 264 A.D.2d 493, 694 N.Y.S.2d 461).
The plaintiff's remaining contentions are without merit.
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 07, 2003
Court: Supreme Court, Appellate Division, Second 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)