Patrician Plastic Corp. v. Automatic Fire Alarm Co., 27 N.Y.2d 602 (1970)

When a new plaintiff is added to an existing action, the defendant already subject to the court’s jurisdiction need not be served with a supplemental summons unless special circumstances necessitate acquiring personal jurisdiction anew.

Summary

Patrician Plastic Corp. sued Automatic Fire Alarm Co. for water damage. It was discovered that Patrician Button Corp., a related entity, owned some of the damaged property. Patrician Plastic moved to add Patrician Button as a plaintiff, and the court ordered service of a supplemental summons, which was never done. Automatic argued the amended complaint was void due to the lack of a supplemental summons. The Court of Appeals held that a supplemental summons was unnecessary because Automatic was already subject to the court’s jurisdiction and had notice of the claim. The failure to serve the supplemental summons was a mere irregularity that did not prejudice Automatic.

Facts

Plaintiffs, Patrician Plastic Corp. and Paragon Button Corp., sued Automatic Fire Alarm for water damage to their property. During pretrial, it was discovered that Patrician Button Corp. actually owned a major portion of the damaged property. The plaintiffs moved to add Patrician Button Corp. as a party plaintiff. The court granted the motion and directed service of a supplemental summons and amended complaint. The amended complaint was served, but a supplemental summons was not served on behalf of Patrician Button Corp. Automatic Fire Alarm was already a defendant in the action. On the eve of trial, Automatic Fire Alarm claimed the service of the amended complaint was void because a supplemental summons had not been served.

Procedural History

The trial court denied the plaintiffs’ motion to declare Automatic Fire Alarm in default but granted leave to serve a supplemental summons, subject to Automatic’s statute of limitations defense. The Appellate Division reversed, holding that service of a supplemental summons was not jurisdictional and directed Automatic to answer the amended complaint without raising the statute of limitations defense. The Court of Appeals granted leave to appeal.

Issue(s)

Whether a defendant already subject to the court’s jurisdiction in an action must be served with a supplemental summons when a new plaintiff is added to assert a claim against that defendant.

Holding

No, because when the defendant is already in the action, there is generally no need to lay a basis for personal jurisdiction anew or to give notice other than that obtained through the proceedings brought to add the new claim.

Court’s Reasoning

The Court reasoned that the purpose of a summons is to subject a person to the court’s jurisdiction and provide notice of the proceedings. When a defendant is already subject to the court’s jurisdiction, serving a supplemental summons is generally unnecessary. The Court noted that CPLR 305(a) requires a supplemental summons to be served upon a new party being joined, but Automatic was not a new party. Instead, Patrician Button was the new party. While the court could have conditioned the joinder on service of a supplemental summons, the failure to do so was a mere irregularity, especially since no prejudice resulted to Automatic. The court distinguished cases where a new claim is added against a nonresident defendant, where it may be necessary to acquire personal jurisdiction anew. The Court emphasized that Automatic was subject to the court’s full jurisdiction and had unqualified notice of all that had occurred. The Court referenced intervention practice (CPLR 1012-1014) and substitution of parties (CPLR 1021) as analogous situations where original process is not required. The Court stated, “Extensive research fails to yield either statute or decisional precedent which would require in all cases that a defendant already in an action be served with original process if a new claim is to be made against it, whether by a newly added plaintiff or otherwise.”