Hyperlawhypertext legal databasebeta Lieber v. Sette-Juliano Construction Corp. 228 A.D.2d 419

← Cases

Lieber v. Sette-Juliano Construction Corp.

228 A.D.2d 419 Court N.Y. App. Div. Decision date 1996-06-03 English

Contents

Majority

p. 419
Leah Lieber, Respondent, v Sette-Juliano Construction Corp., Defendant, and URS Consultants, Inc., Appellant. (And a Third-Party Action.)
[643 NYS2d 420]
p. 420
The Supreme Court properly concluded that since the defendant URS Consultants, Inc. (hereinafter URS) appeared in this action during the 120-day period following its commencement, the action against URS should not have been dismissed for the plaintiffs failure to timely file proof of service (see, CPLR 306-b [a]; Cerrito v Galioto, 216 AD2d 265 ). Accordingly, the action as against URS was properly restored to the trial calendar. Rosenblatt, J. P., Sullivan, Coper tino, Santucci and Goldstein, JJ., concur.