Bruno v. 3 West 35th Co.

88 A.D.3d 612, 931 N.Y.2d 501

This text of 88 A.D.3d 612 (Bruno v. 3 West 35th Co.) 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
Bruno v. 3 West 35th Co., 88 A.D.3d 612, 931 N.Y.2d 501 (N.Y. Ct. App. 2011).

Opinion

The court acted within its discretion in granting plaintiff an extension of time to serve defendant, pursuant to CPLR 306-b, in the interest of justice (see Leader v Maroney, Ponzini & Spencer, 97 NY2d 95, 104-106 [2001]). Defendant received notice of the lawsuit and served an answer before the statute of limitations expired (cf. Slate v Schiavone Constr. Co., 4 NY3d 816 [2005]). Contrary to defendant’s contention, under these cir[613]*613cumstances, plaintiff was not required to show either diligent efforts or exigent circumstances (see Leader, 97 NY2d at 105).

We have considered defendant’s remaining arguments and find them without merit. Concur — Mazzarelli, J.E, Friedman, Catterson, Renwick and Richter, JJ.

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

Related

Leader v. Maroney, Ponzini & Spencer
761 N.E.2d 1018 (New York Court of Appeals, 2001)
Slate v. Schiavone Construction Company
829 N.E.2d 665 (New York Court of Appeals, 2005)

Cite This Page — Counsel Stack

Bluebook (online)
88 A.D.3d 612, 931 N.Y.2d 501, Counsel Stack Legal Research, https://law.counselstack.com/opinion/bruno-v-3-west-35th-co-nyappdiv-2011.