Ruffin v. Lion Corp., 15 N.Y.3d 578 (2010)

Under CPLR 2001, a court may disregard a defect in service of process, such as service by an unauthorized process server, if the defect is a mere technical irregularity that does not prejudice a substantial right of the party being served.

Summary

Louise Ruffin sued Lion Corp. for injuries sustained on a tour bus. Service was made on Lion Corp. in Pennsylvania by a process server who was not authorized under CPLR 313. Lion Corp. defaulted, and a judgment was entered against it. Two years later, Lion Corp. moved to dismiss, arguing improper service. The Court of Appeals held that the defect in service could be disregarded under CPLR 2001 because the improper service was a technical defect and Lion Corp. received actual notice of the lawsuit, reversing the Appellate Division’s ruling that statutes defining the method of service are jurisdictional and can never be disregarded.

Facts

Louise Ruffin was injured while riding a tour bus in New York City. She sued Lion Corp., the bus company. A process server, Richard Rubin, served the summons and complaint on Lion Corp.’s vice-president in Pennsylvania. Rubin was a Pennsylvania resident, not authorized to serve process under CPLR 313.

Procedural History

Lion Corp. failed to respond to the summons and complaint, and the plaintiff obtained a default judgment. Two years later, Lion Corp. moved to dismiss the action and vacate the default judgment, arguing that service was improper under CPLR 313. Supreme Court denied the motion, ruling the violation was a mere irregularity. The Appellate Division reversed, holding that statutes defining the method of service are jurisdictional and may not be disregarded. The Court of Appeals reversed the Appellate Division.

Issue(s)

Whether a plaintiff’s failure to fulfill the service requirements of CPLR 313, because the process server’s residence renders him unauthorized to serve process, constitutes an irregularity that courts may disregard under CPLR 2001, or a jurisdictional defect that courts may not overlook.

Holding

Yes, because the error may be disregarded under CPLR 2001, as long as the defendant receives actual notice and the defect is considered a technical infirmity.

Court’s Reasoning

The Court reasoned that CPLR 2001 allows courts to correct or disregard technical defects at the commencement of an action that do not prejudice the opposing party. The 2007 amendment to CPLR 2001 was intended “to fully foreclose dismissal of actions for technical, non-prejudicial defects.” The Court rejected the Appellate Division’s holding that a CPLR statute defining the method of service can in no circumstance be disregarded. While the payment of a filing fee and the filing of initiatory papers are the acts that commence an action, the Court perceived no reason why the Legislature would wish to foreclose dismissal of actions for technical defects in filing, but not service.

The Court clarified that CPLR 2001 may be used to cure only a “technical infirmity.” In deciding whether a defect in service is merely technical, courts must be guided by the principle of notice to the defendant. Notice must be “reasonably calculated, under all the circumstances, to apprise interested parties of the pendency of the action and afford them an opportunity to present their objections.” (quoting Mullane v. Central Hanover Bank & Trust Co., 339 U.S. 306, 314 (1950)). The Court distinguished between methods of service that are more likely to result in failed delivery (e.g., mailing or emailing the documents) and delivery by an unauthorized process server, which does not affect the likelihood that the summons and complaint will reach the defendant and inform him that he is being sued. Thus, a defect related to the residence of a process server has no effect on the likelihood of the defendant’s receipt of actual notice, and the court may choose to correct or disregard it as a technical infirmity under CPLR 2001. The Court reversed and remitted the case, directing the Appellate Division to consider any other issues raised on appeal by Lion Corp.