Clermont v. Abdelrehim

Appellate Division of the Supreme Court of New York

Clermont v. Abdelrehim

2016 NY Slip Op 7865, 144 A.D.3d 572, 40 N.Y.S.3d 901

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

DecidedNovember 22, 2016

Docket805240/15 2273 2272

StatusPublished

Cited by1 cases

This text of 2016 NY Slip Op 7865 (Clermont v. Abdelrehim) 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

Clermont v. Abdelrehim, 2016 NY Slip Op 7865, 144 A.D.3d 572, 40 N.Y.S.3d 901 (N.Y. Ct. App. 2016).

Pincite

Opinion

Order, Supreme Court, New York County (Alice Schlesinger, J.), entered March 29, 2016, which, to the extent appealed from as limited by the briefs, denied plaintiffs motion to strike the affirmative defense of lack of personal jurisdiction interposed by defendant Intra-Op Monitoring Services, LLC (IOM), and granted the cross motion of IOM to dismiss the action as against it, unanimously reversed, on the law, without costs, plaintiff’s motion to strike granted and IOM’s cross motion to dismiss the complaint as against it denied.

The complaint should not have been dismissed as against IOM, since IOM failed to move to dismiss on the grounds of lack of personal jurisdiction within 60 days after serving its answer (CPLR 3211 [e]). Although defense counsel had hired an investigator to determine whether IOM was still in business, there was sufficient information within the 60-day time limit upon which to move. Thus, counsel failed to make a showing of undue hardship so as to extend the statutory deadline (see Wiebusch v Bethany Mem. Reform Church, 9 AD3d 315 [1st Dept 2004]; Aretakis v Tarantino, 300 AD2d 160 [1st Dept 2002]).

In view of the foregoing, we do not reach the issue of whether service was properly effected.

Concur—Friedman, J.P., Saxe, Richter, Gische and Kapnick, JJ.

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

Order, Supreme Court, New York County (Alice Schlesinger, J.), entered March 29, 2016, which, to the extent appealed from as limited by the briefs, denied plaintiffs motion to strike the affirmative defense of lack of personal jurisdiction interposed by defendant Intra-Op Monitoring Services, LLC (IOM), and granted the cross motion of IOM to dismiss the action as against it, unanimously reversed, on the law, without costs, plaintiff’s motion to strike granted and IOM’s cross motion to dismiss the complaint as against it denied.

The complaint should not have been dismissed as against IOM, since IOM failed to move to dismiss on the grounds of lack of personal jurisdiction within 60 days after serving its answer (CPLR 3211 [e]). Although defense counsel had hired an investigator to determine whether IOM was still in business, there was sufficient information within the 60-day time limit upon which to move. Thus, counsel failed to make a showing of undue hardship so as to extend the statutory deadline (see Wiebusch v Bethany Mem. Reform Church, 9 AD3d 315 [1st Dept 2004]; Aretakis v Tarantino, 300 AD2d 160 [1st Dept 2002]).

In view of the foregoing, we do not reach the issue of whether service was properly effected.

Concur—Friedman, J.P., Saxe, Richter, Gische and Kapnick, JJ.

Cite This Page — Counsel Stack

Bluebook (online)

2016 NY Slip Op 7865, 144 A.D.3d 572, 40 N.Y.S.3d 901, Counsel Stack Legal Research, https://law.counselstack.com/opinion/clermont-v-abdelrehim-nyappdiv-2016.

Opinion

Related

Cite This Page — Counsel Stack