On March 3, 2022, Daniel was injured when a delivery van struck his car. The van was owned by ABC Delivery Corp. and driven by Michael, an ABC employee acting within the scope of his employment.
On February 27, 2025, Daniel commenced a negligence action against Michael alone in New York Supreme Court, mistakenly believing that Michael owned the van. Michael promptly notified ABC of the lawsuit. ABC knew the facts underlying the accident and that Michael was being sued for conduct undertaken in the course of his employment.
In May 2025, Daniel moved to amend the complaint to add ABC as a defendant. ABC opposed the motion, arguing that the statute of limitations had expired. How should the court rule?
Correct Answer: C
Under CPLR 214(5), the statute of limitations for personal injury actions is three years, so it expired on March 3, 2025. Under CPLR 203 and Buran v Coupal, the claim against ABC relates back to the original filing date.
On June 1, 2022, Paula was injured in a car accident caused by Dan. On May 20, 2025, Paula commenced a negligence action against Dan in New York Supreme Court.
On June 2, 2025, a process server delivered the summons and complaint to Dan’s adult son at Dan’s home. The process server mailed a copy to Dan at his home on July 1, 2025, and promptly filed proof of service.
On July 15, 2025, Dan served an answer that included an affirmative defense of improper service. On October 1, 2025, Dan moved to dismiss the complaint for lack of personal jurisdiction, arguing that the mailing was made too late.
How should the court rule?
Correct Answer: C
Under CPLR 308(2), the mailing must occur within 20 days after delivery, so the July 1 mailing was untimely. However, under CPLR 3211(e), Dan waived his improper-service defense by failing to move within 60 days after serving his answer. That period ended in mid-September 2025, so his October 1 motion was late.
On March 2, 2026, Supreme Court entered a judgment in favor of Acme Corp. against Beth, who was represented by counsel throughout the action. On March 4, Acme’s attorney mailed a copy of the judgment with written notice of entry to Beth at her home in New York. Beth gave the papers to her attorney on March 6.
On April 1, Acme’s attorney realized the error and mailed a copy of the judgment with written notice of entry to Beth’s attorney’s office in New York. On May 4, 2026, Beth’s attorney served and filed a notice of appeal. Acme moves to dismiss the appeal as untimely.
How should the court rule?
Correct Answer: D
Under CPLR 2103(b), papers served on a represented party must be served on the party’s attorney, so the March 4 mailing to Beth did not start the time to appeal. The April 1 mailing to her attorney did. Under CPLR 5513(a), the appeal period is 30 days. Under CPLR 2103(b)(2), 5 days are added for service by mail within New York. The deadline was May 6, so the May 4 notice of appeal was timely.
Coastline Supply and Harbor Foods signed a written contract that requires arbitration of all disputes. Harbor’s payment to Coastline was due on March 1, 2017, and Harbor never paid.
On September 10, 2025, Coastline sent Harbor a demand for arbitration by regular first-class mail. The demand complied with CPLR 7503(c) in every respect except the method of service. Harbor did not apply to stay the arbitration and did not take part in it. The arbitrator delivered an award in Coastline’s favor on February 2, 2026.
On April 15, 2026, Harbor moved to vacate the award on the ground that the claim was barred by the statute of limitations.
How should the court rule?
Correct Answer: D
Under CPLR 213(2), the six-year limitations period expired on March 1, 2023. Under CPLR 7503(c), regular first-class mail is not a permitted method of serving an arbitration demand. Because the demand was improperly served and Harbor did not participate, the limitations defense was not waived and may be raised in a motion to vacate under CPLR 7511(b)(2) (Blamowski v Munson Transportation). Harbor’s motion was made within 90 days of delivery of the award, so it was timely under CPLR 7511(a).
On January 15, 2026, a state licensing board held a hearing on charges against Lena, a licensed contractor, and took testimony and documentary evidence. On March 2, 2026, the board issued its final determination revoking Lena’s license and served it on her the same day.
On June 25, 2026, Lena commenced an Article 78 proceeding in Supreme Court by filing a petition. The petition alleges only that the board’s determination was not supported by substantial evidence. Lena served the petition on the board on July 20, 2026. The board moved to dismiss for untimely service.
What should Supreme Court do?
Correct Answer: D
Under CPLR 217, the four-month limitation period ran from the March 2 final determination and expired on July 2, so the petition was filed on time. Under CPLR 306-b, service had to be made within 15 days after the limitation period expired, by July 17, so the July 20 service was late. Under CPLR 7804(g), the court must decide any objection that could end the proceeding before transferring it to the Appellate Division.
Nice work! You’ve completed all 5 free questions. Keep practicing: 220 more questions are waiting for you.
Unlock 220 More Questions →