Witz v. Renner Realty Corp.

Appellate Division of the Supreme Court of New York

Witz v. Renner Realty Corp.

47 A.D.2d 622, 364 N.Y.S.2d 529, 1975 N.Y. App. Div. LEXIS 8778

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

DecidedFebruary 25, 1975

StatusPublished

This text of 47 A.D.2d 622 (Witz v. Renner Realty 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

Witz v. Renner Realty Corp., 47 A.D.2d 622, 364 N.Y.S.2d 529, 1975 N.Y. App. Div. LEXIS 8778 (N.Y. Ct. App. 1975).

Pincite

Opinion

Orders, Supreme Court, New York County, entered on July 2, 1974, unanimously reserved, on the law and in the exercise of discretion, without costs and without disbursements, plaintiff’s motion denied, and defendants-appellants’ motion to dismiss the action for failure to serve a complaint granted, and the action dismissed and severed as to defendants-appellants. The accident resulting in the decedent’s death occurred in 1962. Action was commenced by service of a summons without complaint in 1964, and a complaint was demanded. The verified complaint was not served until 10 years later, in 1974. It was then rejected as untimely, although one defendant retained it for approximately three weeks, and another for some two and one-half months before rejecting it. The rationale of the court at Special Term was based on the defendants’ failure to serve a 45-day notice pursuant to CPLR 3216. However, this provision does not apply until issue has been joined (subd. [b], par. [1]). No valid excuses are offered to explain the delay in serving the complaint over this extended period, and the motion to compel the defendants to accept the complaint should ¡have been denied, and the motion to dismiss for failure to serve a complaint should have been granted. (CPLR 3012, subd. [b]; Hellner v. Mcmnow, 41 A D 2d 525.) Concur — Stevens, J. P., Kupferman, Murphy, Lane and Lynch, JJ.

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

Orders, Supreme Court, New York County, entered on July 2, 1974, unanimously reserved, on the law and in the exercise of discretion, without costs and without disbursements, plaintiff’s motion denied, and defendants-appellants’ motion to dismiss the action for failure to serve a complaint granted, and the action dismissed and severed as to defendants-appellants. The accident resulting in the decedent’s death occurred in 1962. Action was commenced by service of a summons without complaint in 1964, and a complaint was demanded. The verified complaint was not served until 10 years later, in 1974. It was then rejected as untimely, although one defendant retained it for approximately three weeks, and another for some two and one-half months before rejecting it. The rationale of the court at Special Term was based on the defendants’ failure to serve a 45-day notice pursuant to CPLR 3216. However, this provision does not apply until issue has been joined (subd. [b], par. [1]). No valid excuses are offered to explain the delay in serving the complaint over this extended period, and the motion to compel the defendants to accept the complaint should ¡have been denied, and the motion to dismiss for failure to serve a complaint should have been granted. (CPLR 3012, subd. [b]; Hellner v. Mcmnow, 41 A D 2d 525.) Concur — Stevens, J. P., Kupferman, Murphy, Lane and Lynch, JJ.

Cite This Page — Counsel Stack

Bluebook (online)

47 A.D.2d 622, 364 N.Y.S.2d 529, 1975 N.Y. App. Div. LEXIS 8778, Counsel Stack Legal Research, https://law.counselstack.com/opinion/witz-v-renner-realty-corp-nyappdiv-1975.