Greene v. Davidson
| Decision Date | 13 December 1994 |
| Citation | 620 N.Y.S.2d 48,210 A.D.2d 108 |
| Parties | Sylvia GREENE, Plaintiff-Appellant, v. Alan DAVIDSON, et al., Defendants, S. Whimpfheimer, M.D., et al., Defendants-Respondents. |
| Court | New York Supreme Court — Appellate Division |
Before ELLERIN, J.P., and KUPFERMAN, RUBIN and NARDELLI, JJ.
Order, Supreme Court, New York County, (Leland DeGrasse, J.), entered September 16, 1993, which, inter alia, granted the motion of defendants S. Whimpfheimer, M.D., A. Davidson, M.D., and T. Tobias, M.D., P.C. to dismiss the amended complaint, unanimously affirmed, without costs.
Defendant professional corporations moved to dismiss the amended verified complaint for failure to properly commence the action against them within the applicable three-year Statute of Limitations. The court found that the filing of the summons by plaintiff with the County Clerk for the purpose of obtaining a 60-day extension of the Statute of Limitations pursuant to CPLR 203(b)(5), although timely, did not extend the Statute of Limitations because the summons was unaccompanied by a complaint or notice stating the nature of the action and relief sought, as required by CPLR 305(b). Plaintiff contends that the IAS court erred in dismissing the proceeding on a ground which defendant did not raise in its motion or supporting papers. "While there is authority that a court has discretionary powers to consider a motion to dismiss on grounds not raised in the motion papers [citation omitted], a dismissal on such grounds should not be sustained where a party is prejudiced by his [sic] inability to respond to the ground considered sua sponte by the court." (Matter of Dental Society of the State of N.Y. v. Carey, 92 A.D.2d 263, 264, 461 N.Y.S.2d 77, affd. on other grounds 61 N.Y.2d 330, 474 N.Y.S.2d 262, 462 N.E.2d 362). Here, no prejudice is evident inasmuch as plaintiff does not challenge the court's reasoning. Rather, plaintiff now argues that service upon defendant professional corporation relates back to service upon the individual defendant Davidson, previously dismissed from the action, pursuant to CPLR 203(b)(l ). This claim is without merit. Where a plaintiff is attempting to add to the action a new defendant not named in the original summons, the plaintiff must show that both claims arose out of the same conduct, transaction, or occurrence, that the new party is united in interest with the original defendant, and that the new party knew or should have known...
To continue reading
Request your trial
-
In the Matter of Tilcon N.Y. Inc. v. Town of Poughkeepsie
...39 A.D.2d 922, 923, 332 N.Y.S.2d 907; Matter of Hassett v. Barnes, 11 A.D.2d 1089, 1090, 206 N.Y.S.2d 606; cf. Greene v. Davidson, 210 A.D.2d 108, 109, 620 N.Y.S.2d 48). Accordingly, the Supreme Court erred when it declared, at this stage of the proceedings, that Local Law 11–2009 is not in......
-
Tirado v. Miller
...of the court does not have dispositive import to this action, unlike a court's dismissal of a complaint ( see Greene v. Davidson, 210 A.D.2d 108, 109, 620 N.Y.S.2d 48; Matter of Dental Socy. of State of N.Y. v. Carey, 92 A.D.2d 263, 264, 461 N.Y.S.2d 77, affd. 61 N.Y.2d 330, 474 N.Y.S.2d 26......
-
America's Residential Props., LLC v. Lema
...on a ground that was not litigated or raised by the parties ( see Taylor v. Curry, 107 A.D.3d 879, 966 N.Y.S.2d 872;Greene v. Davidson, 210 A.D.2d 108, 109, 620 N.Y.S.2d 48;Matter of Dental Socy. of State of N.Y. v. Carey, 92 A.D.2d 263, 264, 461 N.Y.S.2d 77,affd. 61 N.Y.2d 330, 474 N.Y.S.2......
-
DB Mansfield LLC v. Bny Capital Funding LLC
...defendants' arguments, and did not improperly decide the motions on grounds not raised by the parties ( cf. Greene v. Davidson, 210 A.D.2d 108, 109, 620 N.Y.S.2d 48 [1st Dept.1994],lv. denied85 N.Y.2d 806, 627 N.Y.S.2d 323, 650 N.E.2d 1325 [1995] ). Nor did the motion court hold that the ac......