Goldenberg v. Westchester County Health Care Corp., 16 N.Y.3d 326 (2011)

CPLR 2001, as amended in 2007, does not allow a trial court to disregard a complete failure to file a summons and complaint within the statute of limitations; it is meant to address mistakes in the method of filing, not mistakes in what is filed.

Summary

Arthur Goldenberg commenced a medical malpractice action against Westchester County Health Care Corporation (WCHCC) by serving a summons and complaint without first purchasing an index number and filing the papers. After the statute of limitations expired, WCHCC moved to dismiss based on this error. Goldenberg cross-moved to file the summons and complaint nunc pro tunc. The Court of Appeals held that Goldenberg’s failure to file a summons and complaint was not a mere filing defect curable under CPLR 2001, but a fundamental failure to commence the action properly, and thus the action was time-barred. The 2007 amendment to CPLR 2001 was intended to address procedural filing errors, not the complete omission of required filings.

Facts

Goldenberg sought permission to file a late notice of claim for medical malpractice against WCHCC, attaching a proposed complaint to his petition. He then served WCHCC with a notice of claim, a summons, and a complaint (without an index number). The served complaint added a cause of action for lack of informed consent and alleged continuous treatment for a longer period than the proposed complaint. Goldenberg never purchased an index number or filed the summons and complaint with the County Clerk before service.

Procedural History

Supreme Court granted Goldenberg’s petition to file a late notice of claim. After Goldenberg commenced the action improperly, WCHCC raised statute of limitations and lack of personal jurisdiction defenses in its answer. Supreme Court granted WCHCC’s motion to dismiss and denied Goldenberg’s cross-motion to file nunc pro tunc. The Appellate Division affirmed. The Court of Appeals affirmed, finding no basis to excuse the failure to properly commence the action.

Issue(s)

Whether CPLR 2001, as amended in 2007, permits a court to excuse the complete failure to file a summons and complaint before the statute of limitations expires, when the plaintiff only served the papers and attached a proposed complaint to a petition seeking leave to file a late notice of claim.

Holding

No, because CPLR 2001 addresses mistakes in the method of filing, not the failure to actually file the required documents to commence an action.

Court’s Reasoning

The Court of Appeals reasoned that the 2007 amendment to CPLR 2001, enacted in response to prior decisions, was intended to allow courts to correct defects in the filing process, such as failing to purchase an index number or filing the wrong version of a document. However, it was not intended to excuse a complete failure to file a summons and complaint within the statute of limitations. The Court emphasized that, “in order to properly commence an action, a plaintiff or petitioner would still have to actually file a summons and complaint or a petition. A bare summons, for example, would not constitute a filing.” The Court stated that the purpose of the amendment was to clarify that “a mistake in the method of filing, AS OPPOSED TO A MISTAKE IN WHAT IS FILED, is a mistake subject to correction in the court’s discretion.” Since Goldenberg never filed a summons and complaint, there was “a complete failure to file within the statute of limitations,” which CPLR 2001 does not allow a trial judge to disregard. Because the court found the initial failure to file dispositive, it did not reach the issue of whether the differences between the proposed complaint and the served complaint would independently preclude relief under CPLR 2001.