Tamburo v. P&C Food Markets
New York Supreme Court, Appellate Division
36 A.D.2d 1017, 321 N.Y.S.2d 487 (1971)
- Written by Steven Pacht, JD
Facts
Carmela Tamburo (plaintiff) allegedly was injured while on the premises of P&C Food Markets, Inc. (P&C) (defendant). On April 29, 1969, the last day before the expiration of the statute of limitations for a negligence claim, Tamburo delivered a summons to the county sheriff for the sheriff to serve on P&C. However, the caption on the summons did not identify the court and county in which Tamburo was bringing suit, as required by Civil Practice Law and Rules (CPLR) § 2101. The sheriff served the summons on P&C on April 29. P&C did not enter an appearance in response to the summons. On June 19, Tamburo delivered a supplemental summons to the sheriff for service on P&C, which the sheriff served on P&C the next day. The supplemental summons specified the court and county. In its answer to the complaint, P&C raised the statute of limitations as an affirmative defense; P&C subsequently moved to dismiss the complaint pursuant to CPLR § 3211 based on the statute of limitations. Tamburo opposed the motion and cross-moved for an order to amend the caption nunc pro tunc as of April 29 to include the court name and county. The supreme court denied P&C’s motion and granted Tamburo’s motion. P&C appealed.
Rule of Law
Issue
Holding and Reasoning ()
What to do next…
Here's why 830,000 law students have relied on our case briefs:
- Written by law professors and practitioners, not other law students. 46,400 briefs, keyed to 994 casebooks. Top-notch customer support.
- The right amount of information, includes the facts, issues, rule of law, holding and reasoning, and any concurrences and dissents.
- Access in your classes, works on your mobile and tablet. Massive library of related video lessons and high quality multiple-choice questions.
- Easy to use, uniform format for every case brief. Written in plain English, not in legalese. Our briefs summarize and simplify; they don’t just repeat the court’s language.