Bruno v. 3 West 35th Co.

Appellate Division of the Supreme Court of New York

Bruno v. 3 West 35th Co.

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

Appellate Division of the Supreme Court of the State of New York·Decided October 25, 2011·Published

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

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.

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

Pincite

88 A.D.3d 612 (Bruno v. 3 West 35th Co.) — published by Counsel Stack Legal Research, free access to 12M+ legal documents.

Opinion

Related