Coolidge v. City Center Associates

Appellate Division of the Supreme Court of New York

Coolidge v. City Center Associates

272 A.D.2d 569, 709 N.Y.S.2d 428, 2000 N.Y. App. Div. LEXIS 6059

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

DecidedMay 30, 2000

StatusPublished

This text of 272 A.D.2d 569 (Coolidge v. City Center Associates) 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

Coolidge v. City Center Associates, 272 A.D.2d 569, 709 N.Y.S.2d 428, 2000 N.Y. App. Div. LEXIS 6059 (N.Y. Ct. App. 2000).

Pincite

Opinion

—In an action to recover damages for personal injuries, the plaintiff appeals from an order of the Supreme Court, Orange County (Peter C. Patsalos, J.), dated July 30, 1999, which granted the defendants’ motion to dismiss the action pursuant to CPLR 3012 (b) for failure to timely serve the complaint.

Ordered that the order is affirmed, with costs.

To successfully oppose the defendant’s motion to dismiss the action based upon the plaintiff’s failure to timely serve the complaint (see, CPLR 3012 [b]), the plaintiff was required to demonstrate a meritorious cause of action and a reasonable excuse for the default (see, Bravo v New York City Hous. Auth., 253 AD2d 510). The plaintiff failed to satisfy this standard. O’Brien, J. P., Friedmann, McGinity and Smith, 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 plaintiff appeals from an order of the Supreme Court, Orange County (Peter C. Patsalos, J.), dated July 30, 1999, which granted the defendants’ motion to dismiss the action pursuant to CPLR 3012 (b) for failure to timely serve the complaint.

Ordered that the order is affirmed, with costs.

To successfully oppose the defendant’s motion to dismiss the action based upon the plaintiff’s failure to timely serve the complaint (see, CPLR 3012 [b]), the plaintiff was required to demonstrate a meritorious cause of action and a reasonable excuse for the default (see, Bravo v New York City Hous. Auth., 253 AD2d 510). The plaintiff failed to satisfy this standard. O’Brien, J. P., Friedmann, McGinity and Smith, JJ., concur.

Cite This Page — Counsel Stack

Bluebook (online)

272 A.D.2d 569, 709 N.Y.S.2d 428, 2000 N.Y. App. Div. LEXIS 6059, Counsel Stack Legal Research, https://law.counselstack.com/opinion/coolidge-v-city-center-associates-nyappdiv-2000.

Opinion

Related

Cite This Page — Counsel Stack