Consumer Debt Defense Case Law: Barclays Bank Delaware v Lippman, 61 Misc 3d 135(A) (App Term 2018)

Barclays Bank Delaware v Lippman, 61 Misc 3d 135(A) (App Term 2018) “At Your Own Peril”. Here, a pro se litigant failed to move timely for a motion to dismiss for improper service under CPLR 3211 (e). Again, a pro se litigant is not entitled to greater deference under the law. Failure to adhere to the rules and procedures is not excused by being a pro se litigant.

1. Motion to Dismiss CPLR 3211 (e): the defendant claimed in his answer that he had not received a copy of the summons and complaint. However, pursuant to CPLR 3211 (e), a defendant asserting a defense of improper service, must move within 60 days after serving an answer (or file a pre-answer motion] unless a defendant receives an extension of time based on hardship. Here, the defendant moved too late and did not seek an extension of time.

2. Pro Se/self-represented litigant: Defendant’s lack of awareness of the 60-day requirement was unavailing to the court since a pro se litigant acquires no greater right than any other litigants and does so at his own peril.
Related Posts
  • CACH, LLC v Oyedeji, 60 Misc 3d 128(A) ([App Term 2018). Read More
  • First Natl. Bank of Omaha v Smith, 60 Misc 3d 1230(A) (Civ Ct 2018)( Grey, J., Richmond County) Read More
  • Citibank, N.A. v Geyer, 62 Misc 3d 1207(A) (NY Dist Ct 2019) Read More