Arango v. Bonilla

Appellate Division of the Supreme Court of New York

Arango v. Bonilla

29 A.D.3d 834, 814 N.Y.S.2d 537

CourtAppellate Division of the Supreme Court of the State of New York

DecidedMay 23, 2006

StatusPublished

Cited by2 cases

This text of 29 A.D.3d 834 (Arango v. Bonilla) 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

Arango v. Bonilla, 29 A.D.3d 834, 814 N.Y.S.2d 537 (N.Y. Ct. App. 2006).

Pincite

Opinion

In an action to recover damages for personal injuries, the defendant appeals from an order of the Supreme Court, Queens County (Agate, J.), dated January 19, 2005, which, in effect, denied that branch of his motion which was to dismiss the complaint for lack of personal jurisdiction pursuant to CPLR 3211 (a) (8), and granted the plaintiffs oral application for leave to extend her time to serve the summons and complaint pursuant to CPLR 306-b.

Ordered that the order is affirmed, with costs.

Under the facts of this case, the Supreme Court providently exercised its discretion in granting the plaintiffs application to extend the time within which to serve the summons and complaint pursuant to CPLR 306-b (see Leader v Maroney, Ponzini & Spencer, 97 NY2d 95 [2001]). Florio, J.P., Santucci, Mastro, Rivera and Covello, JJ., concur.

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

In an action to recover damages for personal injuries, the defendant appeals from an order of the Supreme Court, Queens County (Agate, J.), dated January 19, 2005, which, in effect, denied that branch of his motion which was to dismiss the complaint for lack of personal jurisdiction pursuant to CPLR 3211 (a) (8), and granted the plaintiffs oral application for leave to extend her time to serve the summons and complaint pursuant to CPLR 306-b.

Ordered that the order is affirmed, with costs.

Under the facts of this case, the Supreme Court providently exercised its discretion in granting the plaintiffs application to extend the time within which to serve the summons and complaint pursuant to CPLR 306-b (see Leader v Maroney, Ponzini & Spencer, 97 NY2d 95 [2001]). Florio, J.P., Santucci, Mastro, Rivera and Covello, JJ., concur.

Cite This Page — Counsel Stack

Bluebook (online)

29 A.D.3d 834, 814 N.Y.S.2d 537, Counsel Stack Legal Research, https://law.counselstack.com/opinion/arango-v-bonilla-nyappdiv-2006.

Opinion

Related

Cite This Page — Counsel Stack