5 N.Y.3d 184 (2005)
r
r
A defendant does not waive a defense of lack of personal jurisdiction by omitting it from the initial answer if the defendant corrects the omission in an amended answer filed within the time period allowed for amendments as a matter of right under CPLR 3025(a).
r
r
Summary
r
The administrator of Goldie Gilchrist’s estate sued David Shepherd and Thomas Rouse in New York, alleging negligence. The defendants, residents of Georgia, initially failed to raise a defense of lack of personal jurisdiction in their answer. Within the 20-day period for amendments as of right, they filed an amended answer asserting the jurisdictional defense. The plaintiff argued this defense was waived. The Court of Appeals held that because the amended answer was filed within the time to amend as of right, the jurisdictional defense was not waived. This decision clarifies the interplay between CPLR 3211(e) regarding waiver of jurisdictional defenses and CPLR 3025(a) concerning amendments to pleadings.
r
r
Facts
r
Goldie Gilchrist, a New York resident, was struck by a truck in Georgia owned by David Shepherd and driven by Thomas Rouse, both Georgia residents. Gilchrist later died, and her estate’s administrator sued Shepherd and Rouse in New York, alleging negligence and vicarious liability.
r
r
Procedural History
r
The defendants served an initial answer that did not challenge personal jurisdiction. After the plaintiff amended the complaint, the defendants served an amended answer asserting lack of personal jurisdiction within 20 days of serving their original answer. The Supreme Court granted the defendant’s motion to dismiss for lack of personal jurisdiction, finding no waiver. The Appellate Division affirmed, and the plaintiff appealed to the Court of Appeals.
r
r
Issue(s)
r
Whether a defendant waives the defense of lack of personal jurisdiction under CPLR 3211(e) by failing to assert it in the original answer, if the defendant raises the defense in an amended answer served within the time frame permitted for amendments as of right under CPLR 3025(a)?
r
r
Holding
r
No, because a party who adds a jurisdictional defense by an amendment as of right