Key Takeaway
New York's CPLR requires defendants to challenge personal jurisdiction within 60 days or risk waiver, even with protective language in notices of appearance.
Strategic Misstep: Why Protective Language in Notices of Appearance Fails to Preserve Jurisdictional Defenses
Personal jurisdiction challenges in New York civil litigation operate under strict timing requirements that can trap unwary defendants. The Civil Practice Law and Rules (CPLR) establishes a 60-day window for defendants to contest the court’s authority over them, and recent case law demonstrates that creative legal strategies cannot extend this deadline.
Many attorneys attempt to preserve their clients’ rights by filing notices of appearance containing protective language that explicitly reserves jurisdictional defenses. However, as a recent Second Department decision illustrates, this approach provides false security and can lead to devastating consequences for defendants who delay in properly challenging jurisdiction.
The timing requirements for jurisdictional challenges are unforgiving, and courts consistently reject attempts to circumvent established procedural deadlines through creative pleading strategies. Understanding these rules is crucial for any attorney representing defendants in New York state court litigation.
Jason Tenenbaum’s Analysis:
JP Morgan Chase Bank, N.A. v Jacobowitz, 2019 NY Slip Op 07773 (2d Dept. 2019)
Remember: when you answer, the CPLR gives you 60 days to move to dismiss on personal jurisdiction or you are out of the box. Filing a notice of appearance sans answer will not subvert the CPLR. It is a cute strategy but the Courts frown on lack of personal jurisdiction application.
” It is immaterial that the notice of appearance, in addition to requesting that all papers in the action be served on the defendants’ counsel, stated that “he Defendants do not waive any jurisdictional defenses by reason of the within appearance.” This language is not a talisman to protect the defendants from their failure to take timely and appropriate action to preserve their defense of lack of personal jurisdiction. The defendants did not move to dismiss the complaint insofar as asserted against them on the ground of lack of personal jurisdiction until January 2016, more than 10 months after filing the notice of appearance. Under these circumstances, the defendants waived any claim that the Supreme Court lacked personal jurisdiction over them in this action.”
Key Takeaway
The CPLR’s 60-day deadline for challenging personal jurisdiction is absolute and cannot be circumvented through protective language in notices of appearance. Courts view such tactics unfavorably, and defendants who fail to timely move to dismiss on jurisdictional grounds will find their defenses waived, regardless of any reservations of rights language. Proper timing and procedural compliance are essential for preserving jurisdictional challenges.
