Barclays Bank Del. v Lippman

[*1] Barclays Bank Del. v Lippman 2018 NY Slip Op 51524(U) Decided on October 26, 2018 Appellate Term, Second Department Published by New York State Law Reporting Bureau pursuant to Judiciary Law § 431. This opinion is uncorrected and will not be published in the printed Official Reports.

Decided on October 26, 2018
SUPREME COURT, APPELLATE TERM, SECOND DEPARTMENT, 2d, 11th and 13th JUDICIAL DISTRICTS
PRESENT: : DAVID ELLIOT, J.P., MICHELLE WESTON, BERNICE D. SIEGAL, JJ

2017-478 Q C

Barclays Bank Delaware, Respondent,

against

Roy Lippman, Appellant.

Roy Lippman, appellant pro se. Kirschenbaum & Phillips, P.C., for respondent (no brief filed).

Appeal from an order of the Civil Court of the City of New York, Queens County (Laurentina McKetney Butler, J.), entered January 10, 2017. The order denied defendant's motion to dismiss the complaint.

ORDERED that the order is affirmed, without costs.

Plaintiff commenced this consumer credit action to recover the principal sum of $2,763.59 for unpaid credit card charges. In his written answer, defendant asserted that he had not received a copy of the summons and complaint. Thereafter, defendant moved to dismiss the complaint "due to the lack of proper service of the summons and complaint." Plaintiff opposed the motion. By order entered January 10, 2017, the Civil Court denied the motion as untimely pursuant to CPLR 3211 (e).

As defendant's answer contained an assertion that he did not receive a copy of the summons and complaint, defendant was required, pursuant to CPLR 3211 (e), to move for judgment on the ground of improper service within 60 days after serving his answer unless he received an extension of time based on hardship. While defendant argues on appeal that he would have filed his motion earlier if he had been made aware of the 60-day requirement, as noted by the Civil Court in its order, a defendant who appears pro se does so at his own peril and acquires no greater rights than that of any other litigant (see Roundtree v Singh, 143 AD2d 995, 996 [1988]). Since defendant had neither sought nor received an extension of time, the Civil Court properly denied his motion.

Accordingly, the order is affirmed.

ELLIOT, J.P., WESTON and SIEGAL, JJ., concur.

ENTER:
Paul Kenny
Chief Clerk
Decision Date: October 26, 2018