From Casetext: Smarter Legal Research

Schaffrick v. City of Kingston

Appellate Division of the Supreme Court of New York, Third Department
Jul 27, 1995
217 A.D.2d 892 (N.Y. App. Div. 1995)

Opinion

July 27, 1995

Appeal from the Supreme Court, Ulster County (Bradley, J.).


Plaintiff commenced this action on May 18, 1990 by the service of the summons and complaint upon defendants but did not file the summons and complaint nor purchase an index number until October 4, 1993. Thereafter, he obtained an order from Supreme Court permitting the filing of the summons and complaint nunc pro tunc on or before December 31, 1992, prompting this appeal.

We affirm. Since this action was commenced prior to July 1, 1992, the original filing law (CPLR former 306-a, added by L 1991, ch 166, § 381) remains applicable ( see, De Maria v. Smith, 197 A.D.2d 114, 116; Blair and Aloe, New Commencement By Filing Law: A Practitioner's Survival Guide, NYLJ, June 26, 1992, at 1, col 1). Under that statute the application for a nunc pro tunc order was strictly pro forma as it provided that "[w]here a summons in an action * * * has not been filed within [30 days after service is complete], the court upon application shall order the filing thereof nunc pro tunc" ( see, CPLR former 306-a [c], as added by L 1991, ch 166, § 381; see also, 1 Weinstein-Korn-Miller, N.Y. Civ Prac ¶ 306-a.01).

Mikoll, J.P., Crew III, Yesawich Jr. and Peters, JJ., concur. Ordered that the order is affirmed, with costs.


Summaries of

Schaffrick v. City of Kingston

Appellate Division of the Supreme Court of New York, Third Department
Jul 27, 1995
217 A.D.2d 892 (N.Y. App. Div. 1995)
Case details for

Schaffrick v. City of Kingston

Case Details

Full title:SCOTT SCHAFFRICK, Respondent, v. CITY OF KINGSTON et al., Appellants, et…

Court:Appellate Division of the Supreme Court of New York, Third Department

Date published: Jul 27, 1995

Citations

217 A.D.2d 892 (N.Y. App. Div. 1995)
645 N.Y.S.2d 548

Citing Cases

Gotay v. Breitbart

In March 2002, defendants Ross, Suchoff, Hankin, Maidenbaum, Handwerker Mazel, Michael Handwerker, Mark…

Gotay v. Breitbart

In March 2002, defendant Ross, Suchoff, Hankin, Maidenbaum, Handwerker Mazel asserted as an affirmative…