Chase Manhattan Bank, N. A. v. Wolowitz
Chase Manhattan Bank, N. A. v. Bruce Wolowitz
Opinion of the Court
Text extracted by OCR from a scanned original; check the original for exact wording.
—In an action to foreclose a mortgage, the defendants Bruce *429 Wolowitz and Robyn Wolowitz appeal from an order of the Supreme Court, Nassau County (Lally, J.), entered April 2, 1999, which granted the plaintiff’s motion, inter alia, for summary judgment.
Ordered that the order is affirmed, with costs.
The appellants opposed the plaintiffs motion by contending that the complaint is time-barred. However, we agree with the Supreme Court that since this action was brought within six months of the dismissal of an earlier action, it was timely commenced pursuant to CPLR 205 (a). It is well settled that where the appellants were given timely notice of the nature of the claim by proper service of a summons and complaint, an error relating to the identity of the named plaintiff in the original action will not bar recommencement under CPLR 205 (a) (see, Carrick v Central Gen. Hosp., 51 NY2d 242 ; George v Mt. Sinai Hosp., 47 NY2d 170 ; Brown v Huntington Med. Group, 238 AD2d 367 ; Krainski v Sullivan, 208 AD2d 904 ). Thompson, J. P., Krausman, Luciano and Schmidt, JJ., concur.
How later courts describe this case
No later court has written an explanatory parenthetical about this case yet.
Cited by 7 cases
View all citing references →Relies on it most ⓘ
Citing references are not a citator: they show that a later opinion cites this case, not whether it followed, distinguished, or overruled it. Check negative history before relying on this case.