Fleet Bank, N. A. v. Riese

247 A.D.2d 276, 668 N.Y.S.2d 611, 1998 N.Y. App. Div. LEXIS 1417
CourtAppellate Division of the Supreme Court of the State of New York
DecidedFebruary 17, 1998
StatusPublished
Cited by11 cases

This text of 247 A.D.2d 276 (Fleet Bank, N. A. v. Riese) is published on Counsel Stack Legal Research, covering Appellate Division of the Supreme Court of the State of New York primary law. Counsel Stack provides free access to over 12 million legal documents including statutes, case law, regulations, and constitutions.

Bluebook
Fleet Bank, N. A. v. Riese, 247 A.D.2d 276, 668 N.Y.S.2d 611, 1998 N.Y. App. Div. LEXIS 1417 (N.Y. Ct. App. 1998).

Opinion

Judgment, Supreme Court, New York County (Beatrice Shainswit, J.), entered September 15, 1997, awarding plaintiff damages against defendant, and bringing up for review an order, entered on or about August 20, 1997, which, insofar as challenged, dismissed defendant’s affirmative defense of lack of jurisdiction, unanimously affirmed, with costs.

Defendant’s defense of improper service was properly deemed waived since he failed to move to dismiss the complaint based on this defense by March 3, 1997, i.e., 60 days after the January 1, 1997 effective date of chapter 501 of the Laws of 1996 amending CPLR 3211 (e) so as to require such a motion within 60 days after service of a pleading asserting such a defense (Chemical Fin. Servs. Corp. v Zagaro, 173 Misc 2d 745, 748). The same considerations apply here as in Phoenix Garden Rest, v Chu (245 AD2d 164), where we held that the new 120-day time limit in CPLR 3212 (a) on post-note-of-issue summary judgment motions applies to pending actions so as to bar such motions if made more than 120 days after the effective date of the amendment, also January 1, 1997. Such a construction does not prejudice defendant, who could have avoided the 60-day time limit by a showing of “undue hardship” (CPLR 3211 [277]*277[e]), which he has failed to do. We have considered defendant’s remaining contentions and find them to be without merit.

Concur — Sullivan, J. P., Rubin, Mazzarelli and Andrias, JJ.

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

Related

Cleveland v. Mount Sinai Health Sys., Inc
2026 NY Slip Op 30722(U) (New York Supreme Court, New York County, 2026)
State v. Mappa
24 Misc. 3d 1149 (New York Supreme Court, 2009)
B.N. Realty Associates v. Lichtenstein
21 A.D.3d 793 (Appellate Division of the Supreme Court of New York, 2005)
Farkas v. Chase Manhattan Bank
290 A.D.2d 253 (Appellate Division of the Supreme Court of New York, 2002)
Bennardo v. Del Monte Caterers, Inc.
274 A.D.2d 489 (Appellate Division of the Supreme Court of New York, 2000)
Breer v. Sears, Roebuck & Co.
184 Misc. 2d 916 (New York Supreme Court, 2000)
Vandemark v. Jaeger
267 A.D.2d 672 (Appellate Division of the Supreme Court of New York, 1999)
Alaska Seaboard Partners v. Anninos
259 A.D.2d 572 (Appellate Division of the Supreme Court of New York, 1999)
Estate of Garcia v. Thomas
257 A.D.2d 644 (Appellate Division of the Supreme Court of New York, 1999)
Wade v. Byung Yang Kim
250 A.D.2d 323 (Appellate Division of the Supreme Court of New York, 1998)
LaSorsa v. Corrigan
256 A.D.2d 313 (Appellate Division of the Supreme Court of New York, 1998)

Cite This Page — Counsel Stack

Bluebook (online)
247 A.D.2d 276, 668 N.Y.S.2d 611, 1998 N.Y. App. Div. LEXIS 1417, Counsel Stack Legal Research, https://law.counselstack.com/opinion/fleet-bank-n-a-v-riese-nyappdiv-1998.