[*1]
Joe v David's Bridal
2008 NY Slip Op 50805(U) [19 Misc 3d 136(A)]
Decided on April 22, 2008
Appellate Term, First 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This opinion is uncorrected and will not be published in the printed Official Reports.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 April 22, 2008
APPELLATE TERM OF THE SUPREME COURT, FIRST DEPARTMENT

PRESENT: McKEON, P.J., DAVIS, HEITLER, JJ
570306/07.

Doris L. Joe, Plaintiff-Appellant,

against

David's Bridal, Defendant-Respondent.


Plaintiff appeals from an order of the Civil Court of the City of New York, Bronx County (Francis Alessandro, J.), dated November 13, 2006, which dismissed the complaint for lack of personal jurisdiction.


Per Curiam.

Order (Francis Alessandro, J.), dated November 13, 2006, reversed, without costs, complaint reinstated and matter remanded for a new trial.

Plaintiff's complaint was improperly dismissed after trial for lack of personal jurisdiction. Defendant waived any challenge to the court's exercise of in personam jurisdiction over it by failing to file a responsive pleading asserting a jurisdictional defense or to object to the court's jurisdiction in the context of plaintiff's motion to vacate a default judgment which had previously been entered in defendant's favor, and thereafter actively participating in the trial on the merits. To the extent that defendant argued below that it was prevented from filing a responsive pleading because plaintiff never filed a verified complaint, we note that plaintiff's properly drawn endorsed complaint constituted a sufficient pleading in this action for money only (see CCA 902[a]; Siegel Practice Commentaries, McKinney's Cons Laws of NY, Book 29A, CCA 902), and that in the absence of an order directing the service and filing of a formal pleading (see CCA 902[e]), plaintiff was not obligated to file a formal complaint. We reinstate plaintiff's action and remand for a new trial as the slender trial record does not allow meaningful review of substantive issues raised by plaintiff's claim.

THIS CONSTITUTES THE DECISION AND ORDER OF THE COURT.
Decision Date: April 22, 2008