Baione v. Zambrano

22 A.D.3d 698, 802 N.Y.S.2d 383
CourtAppellate Division of the Supreme Court of the State of New York
DecidedOctober 24, 2005
StatusPublished
Cited by5 cases

This text of 22 A.D.3d 698 (Baione v. Zambrano) 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
Baione v. Zambrano, 22 A.D.3d 698, 802 N.Y.S.2d 383 (N.Y. Ct. App. 2005).

Opinion

In an action to recover damages for medical malpractice, the defendant Rehabilitation Medicine Associates appeals from so much of an order of the Supreme Court, Suffolk County (Henry, J.), dated [699]*699March 12, 2004, as denied that branch of its motion which was pursuant to CPLR 3211 (a) (5) to dismiss the complaint insofar as asserted against it and granted the plaintiff a further extension of time pursuant to CPLR 306-b to serve the summons with notice upon it, and the plaintiff separately appeals, as limited by his brief, from so much of the same order as granted that branch of the motion of the defendant Daniel Yeager which was to dismiss the complaint insofar as asserted against him for lack of personal jurisdiction.

Ordered that the order is affirmed insofar as appealed from, without costs or disbursements.

Under the facts of this case, the Supreme Court providently exercised its discretion in granting, in the interest of justice, the plaintiff a further extension of time pursuant to CPLR 306-b to serve the summons with notice upon the defendant Rehabilitation Medicine Associates (see Leader v Maroney, Ponzini & Spencer, 97 NY2d 95 [2001]; Simonovskaya v Olivo, 304 AD2d 553, 554 [2003]; Earle v Valente, 302 AD2d 353, 354 [2003]; Gurevitch v Goodman, 269 AD2d 355, 356 [2000]). Moreover, the Supreme Court properly granted that branch of the motion of the defendant Daniel Yeager which was to dismiss the complaint insofar as asserted against him for lack of personal jurisdiction (see Hafkin v North Shore Univ. Hosp., 279 AD2d 86 [2000], affd 97 NY2d 95 [2001]).

The plaintiff’s remaining contentions are without merit. Schmidt, J.P., Santucei, Luciano and Covello, JJ., concur.

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

Related

Siragusa v. D'Esposito
116 A.D.3d 837 (Appellate Division of the Supreme Court of New York, 2014)
Peguero v. Finnie
40 A.D.3d 945 (Appellate Division of the Supreme Court of New York, 2007)
Rosenzweig v. 600 North Street, LLC
35 A.D.3d 705 (Appellate Division of the Supreme Court of New York, 2006)
Union Plaza Nursing Home, Inc. v. Beatrice
26 A.D.3d 370 (Appellate Division of the Supreme Court of New York, 2006)

Cite This Page — Counsel Stack

Bluebook (online)
22 A.D.3d 698, 802 N.Y.S.2d 383, Counsel Stack Legal Research, https://law.counselstack.com/opinion/baione-v-zambrano-nyappdiv-2005.