Maunz v. Laube

Appellate Division of the Supreme Court of New York

Maunz v. Laube

60 A.D.2d 970, 401 N.Y.S.2d 615, 1978 N.Y. App. Div. LEXIS 10035

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

DecidedJanuary 13, 1978

StatusPublished

Cited by4 cases

This text of 60 A.D.2d 970 (Maunz v. Laube) 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

Maunz v. Laube, 60 A.D.2d 970, 401 N.Y.S.2d 615, 1978 N.Y. App. Div. LEXIS 10035 (N.Y. Ct. App. 1978).

Pincite

Opinion

Order unanimously affirmed, without costs. Memorandum: We find no sufficient justification or explanation for the delay in serving the complaint herein, and under usual circumstances it would have been an abuse of discretion to deny the motion to dismiss the complaint pursuant to CPLR 3012. Here, however, the complaint, which was served on January 8, 1976, was retained by defendant without objection until February 5, 1976, and the motion to dismiss was not made until February 11, 1976. The objection to the late service of the complaint, under these circumstances, must be deemed to have been waived. (See Lavigne v Allen, 36 AD2d 981; Lucenti v City of Buffalo, 29 AD2d 833.) In Lucenti v City of Buffalo (supra), the court held that retention of the complaint effected a waiver, although the motion to dismiss under CPLR 3012 was already pending when the complaint was served and retained. Here the complaint was not rejected until 27 days after it was served. Another six days elapsed before the motion was made. Moreover, because the late service of the complaint had been waived, defendant, himself, was in default for failure to answer or otherwise move within the prescribed period (CPLR 3012, subd [a]). (Appeal from order of Monroe Supreme Court—dismiss action.) Present—Marsh, P. J., Dillon, Hancock, Jr., Denman and Witmer, JJ.

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

Order unanimously affirmed, without costs. Memorandum: We find no sufficient justification or explanation for the delay in serving the complaint herein, and under usual circumstances it would have been an abuse of discretion to deny the motion to dismiss the complaint pursuant to CPLR 3012. Here, however, the complaint, which was served on January 8, 1976, was retained by defendant without objection until February 5, 1976, and the motion to dismiss was not made until February 11, 1976. The objection to the late service of the complaint, under these circumstances, must be deemed to have been waived. (See Lavigne v Allen, 36 AD2d 981; Lucenti v City of Buffalo, 29 AD2d 833.) In Lucenti v City of Buffalo (supra), the court held that retention of the complaint effected a waiver, although the motion to dismiss under CPLR 3012 was already pending when the complaint was served and retained. Here the complaint was not rejected until 27 days after it was served. Another six days elapsed before the motion was made. Moreover, because the late service of the complaint had been waived, defendant, himself, was in default for failure to answer or otherwise move within the prescribed period (CPLR 3012, subd [a]). (Appeal from order of Monroe Supreme Court—dismiss action.) Present—Marsh, P. J., Dillon, Hancock, Jr., Denman and Witmer, JJ.

Cite This Page — Counsel Stack

Bluebook (online)

60 A.D.2d 970, 401 N.Y.S.2d 615, 1978 N.Y. App. Div. LEXIS 10035, Counsel Stack Legal Research, https://law.counselstack.com/opinion/maunz-v-laube-nyappdiv-1978.

Opinion

Related

Cite This Page — Counsel Stack