Goldenberg v. Westchester County Health Care Corp.
946 N.E.2d 717, 16 N.Y.3d 323 (2011)
Premium Feature
Subscribe to Lexplug to listen to the Case Podcast.
Rule of Law:
CPLR 2001, as amended, allows courts to overlook or correct defects in the method of filing legal documents but does not excuse a complete failure to file the statutorily required initiatory papers, such as a summons and complaint, to commence an action, particularly when the statute of limitations has expired.
Facts:
- On May 25, 2007, Arthur Goldenberg commenced a special proceeding seeking permission to file a late notice of claim for medical malpractice against Westchester County Health Care Corporation (WCHCC).
- Goldenberg attached a copy of a proposed complaint as an exhibit to his petition in the special proceeding.
- After Supreme Court granted his petition, Goldenberg served WCHCC with a notice of claim, a summons, and a complaint on October 9, 2007.
- Goldenberg did not purchase an index number or file the summons and complaint with the County Clerk to officially commence the lawsuit before serving WCHCC.
- The complaint Goldenberg served on WCHCC differed from the proposed complaint: it added a cause of action for lack of informed consent and alleged continuous treatment from January 2006 through July 5, 2006.
- The one-year-and-90-day statute of limitations applicable to Goldenberg's malpractice action expired at the latest on February 5, 2008, after accounting for tolling during the pendency of the late notice of claim petition.
Procedural Posture:
- On May 25, 2007, Arthur Goldenberg commenced a special proceeding in Supreme Court (trial court) to file a late notice of claim for medical malpractice against WCHCC.
- On September 25, 2007, Supreme Court granted Goldenberg's petition, directing him to serve a notice of claim within 20 days.
- On October 9, 2007, Goldenberg served WCHCC with a notice of claim, summons, and complaint without an index number, having not first filed them with the County Clerk.
- WCHCC responded with an answer and an amended answer dated October 24 and November 1, 2007, respectively, raising affirmative defenses of the statute of limitations and lack of personal jurisdiction.
- On February 26, 2008, WCHCC moved to dismiss Goldenberg's lawsuit as untimely.
- Goldenberg cross-moved for an order permitting him to file a summons and complaint nunc pro tunc (retroactively) and adopt the index number WCHCC had used for its motion.
- On September 29, 2008, Supreme Court granted WCHCC’s motion to dismiss and denied Goldenberg’s cross motion, finding that the proposed complaint was not the 'functional equivalent of a filing' and that CPLR 2001 did not excuse the complete failure to file.
- Goldenberg appealed Supreme Court’s decision to the Appellate Division, Second Department.
- On December 22, 2009, the Appellate Division affirmed the lower court's decision, primarily citing the material differences between the proposed and served complaints.
- On May 4, 2010, the Court of Appeals granted Goldenberg leave to appeal.
Premium Content
Subscribe to Lexplug to view the complete brief
You're viewing a preview with Rule of Law, Facts, and Procedural Posture
Issue:
Does CPLR 2001, as amended, grant a trial court discretion to excuse a plaintiff's complete failure to file a summons and complaint to commence an action, even if a proposed complaint was filed as an exhibit in an earlier special proceeding and the statute of limitations has run?
Opinions:
Majority - Read, J.
No, CPLR 2001, as amended, does not vest a trial court with discretion to forgive a complete failure to file a summons and complaint. WCHCC did not waive its objection, having timely interposed affirmative defenses of lack of personal jurisdiction and expiration of the statute of limitations in its amended answer. The purpose of the 2007 amendment to CPLR 2001, intended to address the impact of cases like Fry v Village of Tarrytown and Gershel v Porr, was to allow trial courts to correct or overlook defects in the method of filing (e.g., failure to acquire or pay for an index number, minor defects in initiatory papers) so long as the applicable fees were eventually paid. However, the legislative intent explicitly stated that the amendment was not meant to "excuse a complete failure to file within the statute of limitations" and emphasized that a plaintiff must "actually file a summons and complaint or a petition." Since Goldenberg never filed a summons and complaint, and only attached a proposed complaint to a petition for a separate special proceeding without a summons, this constituted a complete failure to file initiatory papers within the statute of limitations, which CPLR 2001 does not allow a trial judge to disregard.
Analysis:
This case clarifies the critical distinction in New York's commencement-by-filing system between a curable defect in the method of filing and an incurable defect in what is filed. It reinforces the necessity of strict compliance with filing requirements for commencing an action, especially when the statute of limitations is a factor. The decision limits judicial discretion under CPLR 2001, preventing it from being used to resurrect cases where fundamental steps, such as filing a summons, were entirely omitted, thereby preventing the commencement of the action itself. This holding serves as a strong reminder to legal practitioners about the strict procedural requirements for initiating litigation.
