Lieber v. Sette-Juliano Construction Corp.
228 A.D.2d 419, 643 N.Y.2d 420, 643 N.Y.S.2d 420, 1996 N.Y. App. Div. LEXIS 6264
Appellate Division of the Supreme Court of the State of New York·Decided June 3, 1996·Published·Cited by 4 cases
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
Lieber v. Sette-Juliano Construction Corp., 228 A.D.2d 419, 643 N.Y.2d 420, 643 N.Y.S.2d 420, 1996 N.Y. App. Div. LEXIS 6264 (N.Y. Ct. App. 1996).
228 A.D.2d 419 (Lieber v. Sette-Juliano Construction Corp.) — published by Counsel Stack Legal Research, free access to 12M+ legal documents.
Related
Epke v. Park Ridge Hospital
288 A.D.2d 891 (Appellate Division of the Supreme Court of New York, 2001)
Livingston v. Wagi
284 A.D.2d 378 (Appellate Division of the Supreme Court of New York, 2001)
Pierno v. Adames
179 Misc. 2d 381 (Civil Court of the City of New York, 1999)
Pettus v. New York Eye & Ear Infirmary
173 Misc. 2d 995 (New York Supreme Court, 1997)