Addesso v. Shemtob

New York Court of Appeals

Addesso v. Shemtob

512 N.E.2d 314, 70 N.Y.2d 689, 518 N.Y.S.2d 793, 1987 N.Y. LEXIS 17333

CourtNew York Court of Appeals

DecidedJuly 9, 1987

StatusPublished

Cited by280 cases

This text of 512 N.E.2d 314 (Addesso v. Shemtob) is published on Counsel Stack Legal Research, covering New York Court of Appeals primary law. Counsel Stack provides free access to over 12 million legal documents including statutes, case law, regulations, and constitutions.

Bluebook

Addesso v. Shemtob, 512 N.E.2d 314, 70 N.Y.2d 689, 518 N.Y.S.2d 793, 1987 N.Y. LEXIS 17333 (N.Y. 1987).

Pincite

Opinion

OPINION OF THE COURT

Memorandum.

The order of the Appellate Division should be affirmed, with costs.

Plaintiff commenced this action for specific performance of a contract for sale of certain real estate by service of summons and complaint. Before answering, defendants moved pursuant to CPLR 3211 (a) (7) to dismiss the complaint for failure to state a cause of action. Within 20 days of service of his original complaint, plaintiff served defendants with an amended complaint (CPLR 3025 [a]). In their answer to the amended complaint, defendants asserted as an affirmative defense that the court lacked personal jurisdiction over them (CPLR 3211 [a] [8]) alleging that the summons and the original complaint were not properly served. On plaintiff’s motion for summary judgment, Supreme Court held that under CPLR 3211 (e) defendants had waived the defense of lack of personal jurisdiction because they had not raised the defense in their earlier CPLR 3211 motion. The Appellate Division unanimously affirmed.

CPLR 3211 (e) provides, in pertinent part, that the defense of lack of personal jurisdiction "is waived if a party moves on any of the grounds set forth in subdivision (a) without raising such objection”. There is no reason to depart from the statute’s plain language even though the jurisdictional defect was asserted in a pleading made as of right in response to a complaint amended as of right by plaintiff. The basis for the objection of lack of personal jurisdiction — improper service of the summons and the original complaint — should have been made in the earlier CPLR 3211 (a) motion to dismiss.

Chief Judge Wachtler and Judges Simons, Kaye, Alexander, Titone, Hancock, Jr., and Bellacosa concur.

On review of submissions pursuant to section 500.4 of the [691]*691Rules of the Court of Appeals (22 NYCRR 500.4), order affirmed, with costs, in a memorandum.

Free access — add to your briefcase to read the full text and ask questions with AI

OPINION OF THE COURT

Memorandum.

The order of the Appellate Division should be affirmed, with costs.

Plaintiff commenced this action for specific performance of a contract for sale of certain real estate by service of summons and complaint. Before answering, defendants moved pursuant to CPLR 3211 (a) (7) to dismiss the complaint for failure to state a cause of action. Within 20 days of service of his original complaint, plaintiff served defendants with an amended complaint (CPLR 3025 [a]). In their answer to the amended complaint, defendants asserted as an affirmative defense that the court lacked personal jurisdiction over them (CPLR 3211 [a] [8]) alleging that the summons and the original complaint were not properly served. On plaintiff’s motion for summary judgment, Supreme Court held that under CPLR 3211 (e) defendants had waived the defense of lack of personal jurisdiction because they had not raised the defense in their earlier CPLR 3211 motion. The Appellate Division unanimously affirmed.

CPLR 3211 (e) provides, in pertinent part, that the defense of lack of personal jurisdiction "is waived if a party moves on any of the grounds set forth in subdivision (a) without raising such objection”. There is no reason to depart from the statute’s plain language even though the jurisdictional defect was asserted in a pleading made as of right in response to a complaint amended as of right by plaintiff. The basis for the objection of lack of personal jurisdiction — improper service of the summons and the original complaint — should have been made in the earlier CPLR 3211 (a) motion to dismiss.

Chief Judge Wachtler and Judges Simons, Kaye, Alexander, Titone, Hancock, Jr., and Bellacosa concur.

On review of submissions pursuant to section 500.4 of the [691]*691Rules of the Court of Appeals (22 NYCRR 500.4), order affirmed, with costs, in a memorandum.

Cite This Page — Counsel Stack

Bluebook (online)

512 N.E.2d 314, 70 N.Y.2d 689, 518 N.Y.S.2d 793, 1987 N.Y. LEXIS 17333, Counsel Stack Legal Research, https://law.counselstack.com/opinion/addesso-v-shemtob-ny-1987.

Opinion

Related

Cite This Page — Counsel Stack