# Santos v. Chappell

> New York Supreme Court · August 3, 1970 · 63 Misc. 2d 730

URL: https://www.frixlaw.com/law-library/cases/6191572

## Case

- **Full name:** Edward Santos, Individually, and as Members of the Long Island Board of Realtors, Inc., and on Behalf of the Long Island Board of Realtors, Inc. v. Harvey Chappell, Individually and as Chairman of the Multiple Listing Committee of the Long Island Board of Realtors, Inc.
- **Court:** New York Supreme Court
- **Decided:** August 3, 1970
- **Citations:** 63 Misc. 2d 730; 313 N.Y.S.2d 320; 1970 N.Y. Misc. LEXIS 1408
- **Precedential status:** Published
- **Opinion:** Opinion of the court by Harnett
- **Judges:** Harnett
- **Cited by:** 1 later opinions in the Frix Law Library

## Citator (automated)

- No negative treatment found by the automated citator. That is not the same as a confirmation that the case is good law; read the citing cases.
- Full citator and citing cases: https://www.frixlaw.com/law-library/cases/6191572

## Opinion text

Bertram Harnett, J.
The complaint was served upon the defendants on May 11, 1970. By written stipulation, the time in which defendants were required to answer the complaint was extended to June 5, 1970, with no specific reference to time for motions. On June 5,1970, defendants moved pursuant to CPLR 3211 to dismiss the complaint.
A motion to dismiss a complaint pursuant to CPLR 3211 (subd. [a]), must be made: “ at any time before service of the responsive pleading is required ”. (CPLR 3211, subd. [e].) A stipulation which extends the time in which to answer a complaint also extends the time in which to move, unless a contrary intent is clearly stated. (See Siegel, Practice 'Commentary, McKinney’s Cons. Laws of N. Y., Book 7B, CPLR 3211, p. 58.) Such is not the case here, since the stipulation was entirely silent beyond the extension of time to answer. Accordingly, the court rules the motion to dismiss was timely made and this motion to strike is denied.
The court notes in closing that a lawsuit is not a game and technicality should not be invoked to exclude .substantive determination unless clearly required to avoid prejudice or undue hardship.

---

Source: Frix Law Library, https://www.frixlaw.com/law-library/cases/6191572. Public record. Not legal advice.