DesignStrategyCorp. v Spicehandler

Annotate this Case
[*1] Design Strategy Corp. v Spicehandler 2004 NY Slip Op 50137(U) Decided on March 11, 2004 Supreme Court, New York County Published by New York State Law Reporting Bureau pursuant to Judiciary Law ยง 431. This opinion is uncorrected and will not be published in the printed Official Reports.

Decided on March 11, 2004
Supreme Court, New York County

DESIGN STRATEGY CORP. and NETWORK INTEGRATION SERVICES, INC., Plaintiffs, - -

against

ELLIOT SPICEHANDLER, Defendant.



Index No. 602542/03



Plaintiffs were represented by The Dweck Law Firm, LLP, 230 Park

Avenue, New York, New York 10169-0124, (212) 687-8200, Jack S.

Dweck, Esq., of counsel.

Defendant was represented by the firm of Kudman Trachten LLP, 350

Fifth Avenue, Suite 4400, New York, New York 10118, (212) 868-

1010, Paul H. Aloe, Esq., of counsel.

Herman Cahn, J.

A motion to dismiss made pursuant to CPLR 3211, automatically extends the time to answer until ten days after decision of the motion, 3211 (f).

In the instant case, defendant interposed a motion to dismiss, CPLR 3211. However, while the motion was still sub-judice, defendant then served a counterclaim. Plaintiff now argues that the serving of the counterclaim effectively moots the motion to dismiss.

It seems clear that by serving the counterclaim, defendant effectively waived the CPLR 3211(f) stay. It cannot serve part of a responsive pleading, a counterclaim, while at the same time seeking the benefit of the automatic stay as to the other part. Therefore, defendant is directed to serve a verified answer within ten days after service of a copy of this order on its attorney.

From the examination of the motion papers, it is not clear under which branch of CPLR 3211 (a), dismissal is sought. Therefore, the motion is denied. If counsel believes it has grounds for dismissal as a matter of law, it may move for summary judgment, CPLR 3212.

The foregoing constitutes the decision and order of the court.

Dated:March 11, 2004

E N T E R : [*2]

J. S. C.

Decision Date: March 11, 2004

Some case metadata and case summaries were written with the help of AI, which can produce inaccuracies. You should read the full case before relying on it for legal research purposes.

This site is protected by reCAPTCHA and the Google Privacy Policy and Terms of Service apply.