Alexander v. Alexander

32 A.D.3d 524, 819 N.Y.S.2d 834
CourtAppellate Division of the Supreme Court of the State of New York
DecidedAugust 29, 2006
StatusPublished
Cited by4 cases

This text of 32 A.D.3d 524 (Alexander v. Alexander) is published on Counsel Stack Legal Research, covering Appellate Division of the Supreme Court of the State of New York primary law. Counsel Stack provides free access to over 12 million legal documents including statutes, case law, regulations, and constitutions.

Bluebook
Alexander v. Alexander, 32 A.D.3d 524, 819 N.Y.S.2d 834 (N.Y. Ct. App. 2006).

Opinion

In an action for a divorce and ancillary relief, the defendant appeals, as limited by his brief, from so much of an order of the Supreme Court, Kings County (Sunshine, J.), dated September 26, 2005, as, in effect, granted that branch of the plaintiffs motion which was for an extension of time to serve the summons and complaint pursuant to CFLR 306-b, and denied his cross motion to dismiss the complaint for lack of personal jurisdiction.

Ordered that the order is reversed insofar as appealed from, on the law and in the exercise of discretion, with costs, that branch of the plaintiffs motion which was for an extension of time to serve the summons and complaint pursuant to CFLR 306-b is denied, the cross motion is granted, and the complaint is dismissed.

The plaintiff failed to serve the defendant in accordance with CFLR 306-b. Under the circumstances of this case, including the plaintiffs failure to proceed at a hearing to determine the validity of service of process, and the plaintiffs lack of diligence throughout the proceeding, it was an improvident exercise of the Supreme Court’s discretion to, in effect, grant that branch of the plaintiffs motion which was for an extension of time to serve the summons and complaint pursuant to CFLR 306-b (see Leader v Maroney, Ponzini & Spencer, 97 NY2d 95 [2001]; Baione v Central Suffolk Hosp., 14 AD3d 635 [2005]; Winter v Irizarry, 300 AD2d 472 [2002]; Matter of DeSilva v Town of Brookhaven, 299 AD2d 409 [2002]). Accordingly, the defendant’s [525]*525cross motion to dismiss the complaint for lack of personal jurisdiction should have been granted (see CPLR 3211 [a] [8]; Colon v Bailey, 26 AD3d 454 [2006]). Schmidt, J.P., Ritter, Santucci and Lunn, JJ., concur.

Free access — add to your briefcase to read the full text and ask questions with AI

Related

PDK Labs, Inc. v. G.M.G. Trans West Corp.
101 A.D.3d 970 (Appellate Division of the Supreme Court of New York, 2012)
Khodeeva v. Chi Chung Yip
84 A.D.3d 1030 (Appellate Division of the Supreme Court of New York, 2011)
Ortiz v. Malik
35 A.D.3d 560 (Appellate Division of the Supreme Court of New York, 2006)

Cite This Page — Counsel Stack

Bluebook (online)
32 A.D.3d 524, 819 N.Y.S.2d 834, Counsel Stack Legal Research, https://law.counselstack.com/opinion/alexander-v-alexander-nyappdiv-2006.