Khiyayev v. Mikesaid Enterprises

There is no merit to defendants assertion that the complaint should be dismissed due to errors in the spelling of defendants names. Defendants have not demonstrated any prejudice from the insignificant errors. A defect or irregularity in a summons or pleading will be disregarded or subject to amendment in the absence of prejudice. (CPLR 305[c], 2001, 3026.) In addition, an amendment to correct a misnomer will be permitted where, as here, (1) the court has acquired jurisdiction over the intended but misnamed defendant, and (2) the defendant was fairly apprised that he was the party the action was intended to affect and will not be prejudiced by the amendment. (See, Holster v Ross, 45 AD3d 640 [2007]; Kingalarm Distribs. v Video Insights Corp., 274 AD2d 416 [2000].) The Court notes that, in addition to the invalidity of the contention that the errors in defendants names affected the jurisdiction which would have been obtained by proper service of process on them, defendants waived all jurisdictional objections by stipulation dated May 5, 2008.