Strautmanis v. GMDC Two Corp.

2022 NY Slip Op 03092
CourtAppellate Division of the Supreme Court of the State of New York
DecidedMay 10, 2022
DocketIndex No. 158429/20 Appeal No. 15914 Case No. 2021-03768
StatusPublished
Cited by1 cases

This text of 2022 NY Slip Op 03092 (Strautmanis v. GMDC Two 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.

Bluebook
Strautmanis v. GMDC Two Corp., 2022 NY Slip Op 03092 (N.Y. Ct. App. 2022).

Opinion

Strautmanis v GMDC Two Corp. (2022 NY Slip Op 03092)
Strautmanis v GMDC Two Corp.
2022 NY Slip Op 03092
Decided on May 10, 2022
Appellate Division, First Department
Published by New York State Law Reporting Bureau pursuant to Judiciary Law § 431.
This opinion is uncorrected and subject to revision before publication in the Official Reports.


Decided and Entered: May 10, 2022
Before: Renwick, J.P., Mazzarelli, Gesmer, González, JJ.

Index No. 158429/20 Appeal No. 15914 Case No. 2021-03768

[*1]Irja Strautmanis, Plaintiff-Respondent,

v

GMDC Two Corporation, et al., Defendants, Philip Cheung, Defendant-Appellant.


Gallo Vitucci Klar LLP, New York (Sean R. Hutchinson of counsel), for appellant.

Thompson Hine LLP, New York (Richard A. De Palma of counsel), for respondent.



Order, Supreme Court, New York County (Lynn R. Kotler, J.), entered May 18, 2021, which, to the extent appealed from as limited by the briefs, denied defendant Philip Cheung's motion to dismiss the complaint based on plaintiff's alleged improper utilization of CPLR 1024 and failure to commence the action against him within the statute of limitations, unanimously affirmed, with costs.

The court correctly denied Cheung's motion to dismiss the complaint as against him where plaintiff made diligent efforts to ascertain Cheung's identity prior to filing her complaint, and the complaint adequately described Cheung to apprise him that he was the intended defendant (see CPLR 1024; Tucker v Lorieo, 291 AD2d 261 [1st Dept 2002]; Goldberg v Boatmax://, Inc., 41 AD3d 255, 256 [1st Dept 2007]). The court also correctly found that plaintiff served process on Cheung within the statute of limitations (see Tucker, 291 AD2d at 261-262).

We have considered Cheung's remaining arguments and find them unavailing.THIS CONSTITUTES THE DECISION AND ORDER

OF THE SUPREME COURT, APPELLATE DIVISION, FIRST DEPARTMENT.

ENTERED: May 10, 2022



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

Related

Strautmanis v. GMDC Two Corp.
2022 NY Slip Op 03092 (Appellate Division of the Supreme Court of New York, 2022)

Cite This Page — Counsel Stack

Bluebook (online)
2022 NY Slip Op 03092, Counsel Stack Legal Research, https://law.counselstack.com/opinion/strautmanis-v-gmdc-two-corp-nyappdiv-2022.