Parrotta v. Wolgin
| Decision Date | 18 December 1997 |
| Citation | 666 N.Y.S.2d 341,245 A.D.2d 872 |
| Parties | , 1997 N.Y. Slip Op. 11,103 Robert PARROTTA, Respondent, v. Norman WOLGIN et al., Individually and Doing Business as Green Island Associates, Appellants. |
| Court | New York Supreme Court — Appellate Division |
F. Douglas Novotny (James K. O'Sullivan of Fiedelman & McGraw, Jericho, of counsel), Albany, for appellants.
Gregory V. Canale, Glens Falls, for respondent.
Before MIKOLL, J.P., and MERCURE, CREW, CASEY and YESAWICH, JJ.
Appeal from an order of the Supreme Court (Dier, J.), entered October 31, 1996 in Warren County, which denied defendants' motion for summary judgment dismissing the complaint.
Plaintiff seeks to recover for personal injuries he allegedly sustained on June 16, 1991 while walking on the Sagamore Golf Course in the Town of Bolton, Warren County. Plaintiff commenced this action in March 1994 and sent defendants separate summonses and complaints along with acknowledgements of receipt by mail. Each of the acknowledgements was returned, unsigned, to plaintiff's counsel and service was not completed by any other method; accordingly, proofs of service were never filed. On June 3, 1996, defendants moved for summary judgment dismissing the complaint for failure to effect proper service and failure to timely file proof of same as required byCPLR 306-b. Supreme Court denied the motion, finding that defendants, having informally appeared in the action, were barred from raising these jurisdictional objections. Defendants appeal.
Prior to service of defendants' answer--in which they assert their jurisdictional defense--in March 1995, a claims representative from American International Adjustment Company Inc., evidently acting on defendants' behalf, contacted plaintiff's counsel on several occasions, requesting extensions of time to answer (which were granted) and seeking discovery of medical reports, names of witnesses and the date of the incident. This conduct, as Supreme Court found, constituted an "informal appearance" sufficient to preclude entry of a default judgment against defendants (see, Cohen v. Ryan, 34 A.D.2d 789, 790, 311 N.Y.S.2d 644) and, in our view, to also avoid the automatic dismissal that occurs upon expiration of the 120-day period set forth in CPLR 306-b (a) (see generally, Matter of Barsalow v. City of Troy, 208 A.D.2d 1144, 1145-1146, 617 N.Y.S.2d 594).
Nevertheless, defendants' motion should have been granted, for where, as here, "the substantial activity which constitutes the appearance occurs before the defendant's time to answer expires, it does not deprive him...
To continue reading
Request your trial
-
Deutsche Bank Nat'l Trust Co. v. Hall
...v. Stein, 99 A.D.3d 970, 971, 953 N.Y.S.2d 146 ; Stewart v. Raymond Corp., 84 A.D.3d 932, 933, 921 N.Y.S.2d 892 ; Parrotta v. Wolgin, 245 A.D.2d 872, 873, 666 N.Y.S.2d 341 ). Indeed, even service of a formal "notice of appearance will not protect the defendant from entry of a default judgme......
-
Barns & Farms Realty, LLC v. Novelli
...of this case, the Supreme Court properly declined to enter a default judgment against Novelli and Bouchard ( see Parrotta v. Wolgin, 245 A.D.2d 872, 873, 666 N.Y.S.2d 341; Meyer v. A & B Am., 160 A.D.2d 688, 553 N.Y.S.2d 462; General Elec. Credit Corp. v. Zemrus, 115 A.D.2d 953, 497 N.Y.S.2......
-
Wells Fargo Bank v. Butler
...N.Y.S.2d 146 [2d Dept. 2012];Stewart v. Raymond Corp., 84 A.D.3d 932, 933, 921 N.Y.S.2d 892 [2d Dept. 2011];Parrotta v. Wolgin, 245 A.D.2d 872, 873, 666 N.Y.S.2d 341 [3d Dept. 1997];Cohen v. Ryan, 34 A.D.2d 789, 311 N.Y.S.2d 644 [2d Dept. 1970];see also Meyer v. A & B Am., 160 A.D.2d 688, 6......
-
City of Newburgh v. 96 Broadway LLC
...847 N.Y.S.2d 765; Rubenstein v. Manhattan & Bronx Surface Tr. Operating Auth., 280 A.D.2d 312, 719 N.Y.S.2d 659; Parrotta v. Wolgin, 245 A.D.2d 872, 666 N.Y.S.2d 341; Quinn v. Booth Mem. Hosp., 239 A.D.2d 266, 657 N.Y.S.2d 680; Ambers v. C.T. Indus., Inc., 161 A.D.2d 256, 554 N.Y.S.2d 903; ......