CPLR § 1024 John and Jane Doe

CPLR § 1024 Unknown parties

Thas v Dayrich Trading, Inc., 2010 NY Slip Op 08930 (App. Div., 2nd 2010)

"While CPLR 1024 allows a party who is ignorant of the name or identity of one who may properly be made a party to proceed by designating so much of his identity as is known, a summons served in a "John Doe" form is jurisdictionally sufficient only if the actual defendants are adequately described and would have known, from the description in the complaint, that they were the intended defendants"(Lebowitz v Fieldston Travel Bur., 181 AD2d 481, 482 [citation and internal quotation marks omitted]). Accordingly, that branch of the defendants' motion which was to vacate the default of the defendant John Doe in appearing or answering the complaint was properly granted since the summons was jurisdictionally insufficient with respect to John Doe, an unidentified person not adequately described in the complaint (see Carmer v Odd Fellows, 66 AD3d 1435; Olmsted v Pizza Hut of Am., Inc., 28 AD3d 855; Lebowitz v Fieldston Travel Bur.,181 AD2d 481). 

Leave a Reply

Fill in your details below or click an icon to log in:

WordPress.com Logo

You are commenting using your WordPress.com account. Log Out /  Change )

Twitter picture

You are commenting using your Twitter account. Log Out /  Change )

Facebook photo

You are commenting using your Facebook account. Log Out /  Change )

Connecting to %s

%d bloggers like this: