Parker v. Mack
472 N.Y.S.2d 882, 460 N.E.2d 1316, 61 N.Y.2d 114 (1984)
Premium Feature
Subscribe to Lexplug to listen to the Case Podcast.
Rule of Law:
Service of a summons that, in the absence of a complaint, fails to include the mandatory notice of the nature of the action and relief sought under CPLR 305(b) is a jurisdictional defect. Consequently, such service does not 'commence' an action, which precludes the plaintiff from benefiting from the six-month statutory extension for commencing a new action under CPLR 205(a).
Facts:
- On October 18, 1978, Ute M. Parker was involved in a car accident with the defendant while driving her husband's car.
- The statute of limitations for a personal injury claim arising from the accident was three years, set to expire on October 18, 1981.
- On October 17, 1981, one day before the statute of limitations was to expire, Ute M. Parker and her husband, Arvin B. Parker, had two summonses served on the defendant.
- The summonses were served alone, without an accompanying complaint.
- The summonses failed to contain or have attached any notice stating the nature of the action or the relief sought, as mandated by CPLR 305(b).
Procedural Posture:
- Plaintiffs served summonses on the defendant, and subsequently forwarded complaints to defendant's counsel.
- Defendant's counsel returned the complaints and moved in Supreme Court (New York's trial court) to dismiss the actions due to the insufficiency of the summonses.
- Plaintiffs did not oppose the dismissal but cross-moved for the dismissal order to include a provision granting them six months to commence a new action under CPLR 205(a).
- The Supreme Court granted the motion to dismiss but also granted the plaintiffs' cross-motion, allowing for the six-month extension.
- Defendant (as appellant) appealed to the Appellate Division from the part of the order that granted the six-month extension.
- The Appellate Division modified the order by reversing the provision that granted plaintiffs' cross-motion.
- Plaintiffs (as appellants) appealed as of right to the Court of Appeals, New York's highest court.
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 the service of a summons without an accompanying complaint or the statutorily required notice under CPLR 305(b) constitute the 'commencement' of an action, thereby allowing a plaintiff to utilize the six-month extension for filing a new suit under CPLR 205(a) after the original is dismissed?
Opinions:
Majority - Jones, J.
No. The service of a summons lacking the required notice under CPLR 305(b) is a jurisdictional defect that fails to commence an action, thus the six-month extension under CPLR 205(a) is unavailable. The court reasoned that CPLR 305(b)'s use of the imperative word 'shall' makes the notice requirement mandatory when a complaint is not served. Failure to comply with this statutory mandate regarding the substance and content of the summons is a jurisdictional defect, just as improper service would be. The court distinguished this case from prior precedents allowing the CPLR 205(a) extension, noting those cases involved dismissals for lack of subject matter jurisdiction or infirmities with the plaintiff, not a failure to obtain personal jurisdiction over the defendant. Finally, the court held that a defendant's actual notice of a claim cannot substitute for strict compliance with the statutory requirements for commencing an action.
Dissenting - Meyer, J.
Yes. The service of a summons, even if defective for lacking the required notice, is sufficient to 'commence' an action for the purposes of invoking the remedial six-month extension under CPLR 205(a). The dissent argued that the CPLR should be construed liberally to avoid formalism and ensure diligent suitors have their day in court, as articulated in Gaines v. City of New York. The legislative history of the CPLR 305(b) amendment indicates it was intended to address issues with default judgments, not to create a jurisdictional trap. The court has previously allowed the extension in cases where the initial action was deeply flawed (e.g., brought by a nonexistent plaintiff). The dissent contended that a defect in the summons's content, which does not prejudice the defendant, is a correctable irregularity, not a jurisdictional nullity that prevents an action from ever commencing.
Analysis:
This decision solidifies a rule of strict compliance for the notice requirement in a summons served without a complaint in New York. It clarifies that such an omission is a jurisdictional defect, not a mere procedural irregularity, thereby preventing the commencement of an action. This ruling significantly restricts the application of the CPLR 205(a) 'saving statute' for plaintiffs whose initial filings are deficient in this specific way. The case prioritizes statutory formalism over a defendant's actual notice, placing a heavy burden on plaintiffs' attorneys to ensure meticulous adherence to procedural rules at the outset of litigation to avoid having claims permanently barred by the statute of limitations.
