Lieber v. Sette-Juliano Construction Corp.
This text of 228 A.D.2d 419 (Lieber v. Sette-Juliano Construction Corp.) 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.
Opinion
[420]*420The Supreme Court properly concluded that since the defendant URS Consultants, Inc. (hereinafter URS) appeared in this action during the 120-day period following its commencement, the action against URS should not have been dismissed for the plaintiffs failure to timely file proof of service (see, CPLR 306-b [a]; Cerrito v Galioto, 216 AD2d 265). Accordingly, the action as against URS was properly restored to the trial calendar. Rosenblatt, J. P., Sullivan, Coper tino, Santucci and Goldstein, JJ., concur.
Free access — add to your briefcase to read the full text and ask questions with AI
Related
Cite This Page — Counsel Stack
228 A.D.2d 419, 643 N.Y.2d 420, 643 N.Y.S.2d 420, 1996 N.Y. App. Div. LEXIS 6264, Counsel Stack Legal Research, https://law.counselstack.com/opinion/lieber-v-sette-juliano-construction-corp-nyappdiv-1996.