Floyd v. Salamon Bros.

249 A.D.2d 139, 672 N.Y.S.2d 30, 1998 N.Y. App. Div. LEXIS 4325
CourtAppellate Division of the Supreme Court of the State of New York
DecidedApril 21, 1998
StatusPublished
Cited by12 cases

This text of 249 A.D.2d 139 (Floyd v. Salamon Bros.) 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
Floyd v. Salamon Bros., 249 A.D.2d 139, 672 N.Y.S.2d 30, 1998 N.Y. App. Div. LEXIS 4325 (N.Y. Ct. App. 1998).

Opinion

—Order, Supreme Court, New York County (Paula Omansky, J.), entered January 22, 1997, which granted defendant’s motion to vacate a prior order holding it in default and to dismiss the complaint for failure to file proof of service, unanimously affirmed, without costs. .

Inasmuch as the action was automatically dismissed as of February 24, 1996 due to plaintiff’s admitted failure to file proof of service by that date (see, Black v Randall Med. Offs., 237 AD2d 110; Matter of Hicks v City of New York, 247 AD2d 342), and no new action was commenced within 120 days thereafter, as permitted by CPLR former 306-b (b), the IAS Court correctly held that it did not have jurisdiction to enter the default judgment that it had granted on July 11, 1996, and properly vacated its prior order holding defendant in default [140]*140and dismissed the complaint. Defendant’s service of a demand for a complaint before February 24, 1996 did not constitute an appearance (CPLR 3012 [b]), and its activities after February 24, 1996, in serving an answer (rejected by plaintiff as untimely) and opposition papers to plaintiff’s motion for a default judgment (never received by the court), were properly characterized by the IAS Court as “nullit[ies]”, since there was no action pending in which defendant could have appeared. We reject plaintiff’s argument for retroactive application of amended CPLR 306-b, which does not contain any language indicating a retroactive intent (McKinney’s Cons Laws of NY, Book 1, Statutes § 52). Concur — Sullivan, J. P., Milonas, Williams, Mazzarelli and Saxe, JJ.

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

Related

American Federal Group, Ltd. v. Union Chelsea National Bank
279 A.D.2d 433 (Appellate Division of the Supreme Court of New York, 2001)
Antoine v. Patel
268 A.D.2d 546 (Appellate Division of the Supreme Court of New York, 2000)
Tucker v. Leak
268 A.D.2d 320 (Appellate Division of the Supreme Court of New York, 2000)
Bolarinwa v. Albany Medical Center Hospital
261 A.D.2d 21 (Appellate Division of the Supreme Court of New York, 2000)
Bloomer v. Altman
264 A.D.2d 795 (Appellate Division of the Supreme Court of New York, 1999)
Gold v. Noori
261 A.D.2d 208 (Appellate Division of the Supreme Court of New York, 1999)
Ulster Heights Property, Inc. v. Assessor of Orangetown
261 A.D.2d 478 (Appellate Division of the Supreme Court of New York, 1999)
Blue Hill Plaza v. Assessor(s) of the Town of Orangetown
260 A.D.2d 476 (Appellate Division of the Supreme Court of New York, 1999)
Goshen Shopping Associates v. Assessor(s) of the Town of Goshen
260 A.D.2d 481 (Appellate Division of the Supreme Court of New York, 1999)
Ferran v. Benkowski
260 A.D.2d 690 (Appellate Division of the Supreme Court of New York, 1999)
Connor v. Deas
255 A.D.2d 287 (Appellate Division of the Supreme Court of New York, 1998)
Reid v. Presbyterian Hospital
254 A.D.2d 139 (Appellate Division of the Supreme Court of New York, 1998)

Cite This Page — Counsel Stack

Bluebook (online)
249 A.D.2d 139, 672 N.Y.S.2d 30, 1998 N.Y. App. Div. LEXIS 4325, Counsel Stack Legal Research, https://law.counselstack.com/opinion/floyd-v-salamon-bros-nyappdiv-1998.