Kukulka v. Millard Fillmore Suburban Hospital

Appellate Division of the Supreme Court of New York

Kukulka v. Millard Fillmore Suburban Hospital

106 A.D.2d 886, 483 N.Y.S.2d 507, 1984 N.Y. App. Div. LEXIS 21799

CourtAppellate Division of the Supreme Court of the State of New York

DecidedDecember 14, 1984

StatusPublished

Cited by5 cases

This text of 106 A.D.2d 886 (Kukulka v. Millard Fillmore Suburban Hospital) 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

Kukulka v. Millard Fillmore Suburban Hospital, 106 A.D.2d 886, 483 N.Y.S.2d 507, 1984 N.Y. App. Div. LEXIS 21799 (N.Y. Ct. App. 1984).

Pincite

Opinion

Order unanimously reversed, on the law, without costs, and motion denied. Memorandum: Plaintiff delivered a summons and complaint to the Erie County Sheriff pursuant to CPLR 203 (subd [b], par 5) two days before the Statute of Limitations was to run. The Sheriff served the summons and complaint upon defendant’s former employer within the 60-day extension period. Defendant, however, was never personally served. Thereafter, defendant interposed an answer generally denying the allegations of plaintiff’s complaint. Defendant subsequently claimed in an amended answer that the action was time barred and in a second amended answer alleged that [887]*887plaintiff lacked personal jurisdiction. Inasmuch as defendant waived his jurisdictional objection by failing to raise the issue either in a preanswer motion or in his original answer (CPLR 320, 3211, subd [e]; DeAngelis v Friedman, 46 AD2d 66; Wahrhaftig v Space Design Group, 29 AD2d 699), defendant also forfeited the Statute of Limitations defense, since timely service of the summons and complaint commenced the action (Keary v Great Atlantic & Pacific Tea Co., 96 AD2d 499). (Appeal from order of Supreme Court, Erie County, Bayger, J. — medical malpractice.) Present — Doerr, J. P., Denman, Boomer, O’Donnell and Schnepp, JJ.

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

Order unanimously reversed, on the law, without costs, and motion denied. Memorandum: Plaintiff delivered a summons and complaint to the Erie County Sheriff pursuant to CPLR 203 (subd [b], par 5) two days before the Statute of Limitations was to run. The Sheriff served the summons and complaint upon defendant’s former employer within the 60-day extension period. Defendant, however, was never personally served. Thereafter, defendant interposed an answer generally denying the allegations of plaintiff’s complaint. Defendant subsequently claimed in an amended answer that the action was time barred and in a second amended answer alleged that [887]*887plaintiff lacked personal jurisdiction. Inasmuch as defendant waived his jurisdictional objection by failing to raise the issue either in a preanswer motion or in his original answer (CPLR 320, 3211, subd [e]; DeAngelis v Friedman, 46 AD2d 66; Wahrhaftig v Space Design Group, 29 AD2d 699), defendant also forfeited the Statute of Limitations defense, since timely service of the summons and complaint commenced the action (Keary v Great Atlantic & Pacific Tea Co., 96 AD2d 499). (Appeal from order of Supreme Court, Erie County, Bayger, J. — medical malpractice.) Present — Doerr, J. P., Denman, Boomer, O’Donnell and Schnepp, JJ.

Cite This Page — Counsel Stack

Bluebook (online)

106 A.D.2d 886, 483 N.Y.S.2d 507, 1984 N.Y. App. Div. LEXIS 21799, Counsel Stack Legal Research, https://law.counselstack.com/opinion/kukulka-v-millard-fillmore-suburban-hospital-nyappdiv-1984.

Opinion

Related

Cite This Page — Counsel Stack