The Supreme Court properly concluded that since the defendant URS Consultants, Inc. (hereinafter URS) appeared in this action during the 120-day period following its commencement, the action against URS should not have been dismissed for the plaintiffs failure to timely file proof of service (see, CPLR 306-b [a]; Cerrito v Galioto, 216 AD2d 265). Accordingly, the action as against URS was properly restored to the trial calendar. Rosenblatt, J. P., Sullivan, Coper tino, Santucci and Goldstein, JJ., concur.
Leah Lieber, Respondent, v. Sette-Juliano Construction Corp., Defendant, and URS Consultants, Inc., Appellant. (And a Third-Party Action.)
228 A.D.2d 419643 N.Y.S.2d 420
Authorities cited
No cited authorities resolved to law.co cases yet.