Deutsche Bank, AG v. Vik

Appellate Division of the Supreme Court of New York

Deutsche Bank, AG v. Vik

2017 NY Slip Op 3075, 149 A.D.3d 600, 50 N.Y.S.3d 291

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

DecidedApril 20, 2017

Docket3797N 161257/13

StatusPublished

Cited by5 cases

This text of 2017 NY Slip Op 3075 (Deutsche Bank, AG v. Vik) 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

Deutsche Bank, AG v. Vik, 2017 NY Slip Op 3075, 149 A.D.3d 600, 50 N.Y.S.3d 291 (N.Y. Ct. App. 2017).

Pincite

Opinion

Order, Supreme Court, New York County (Anil C. Singh, J.), entered March 7, 2016, which, to the extent appealed from as limited by the briefs, granted plaintiff’s motion to extend its time for service pursuant to CPLR 306-b, unanimously affirmed, with costs.

The motion court exercised its discretion in a provident manner in granting the extension both for “good cause shown” and “in the interest of justice” (CPLR 306-b; see Leader v Maroney, Ponzini & Spencer, 97 NY2d 95, 104-105 [2001]). Although plaintiff waited to move for the extension until 18 months after service was contested, this was not unreasonable under the circumstances presented. Furthermore, other relevant factors weighed in favor of granting the motion including plaintiff’s diligence, the expiration of the statute of limitations on a number of the plaintiff’s claims and the absence of prejudice to defendant in light of his actual notice of the summons and complaint (see Petracca v Hudson Tower Owners LLC, 139 AD3d 518 [1st Dept 2016]). Where “ ‘some factors weigh in favor of granting an interest of justice extension and some do not,’ ” this Court will not disturb the motion court’s “ ‘discretion-laden determination’ ” (id. at 519, quoting Sutter v Reyes, 60 AD3d 448, 449 [1st Dept 2009]).

We have considered defendant’s remaining contentions and find them unavailing.

Concur — Acosta, J.P., Mazzarelli, Manzanet-Daniels, Gische and Kahn, JJ.

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

Order, Supreme Court, New York County (Anil C. Singh, J.), entered March 7, 2016, which, to the extent appealed from as limited by the briefs, granted plaintiff’s motion to extend its time for service pursuant to CPLR 306-b, unanimously affirmed, with costs.

The motion court exercised its discretion in a provident manner in granting the extension both for “good cause shown” and “in the interest of justice” (CPLR 306-b; see Leader v Maroney, Ponzini & Spencer, 97 NY2d 95, 104-105 [2001]). Although plaintiff waited to move for the extension until 18 months after service was contested, this was not unreasonable under the circumstances presented. Furthermore, other relevant factors weighed in favor of granting the motion including plaintiff’s diligence, the expiration of the statute of limitations on a number of the plaintiff’s claims and the absence of prejudice to defendant in light of his actual notice of the summons and complaint (see Petracca v Hudson Tower Owners LLC, 139 AD3d 518 [1st Dept 2016]). Where “ ‘some factors weigh in favor of granting an interest of justice extension and some do not,’ ” this Court will not disturb the motion court’s “ ‘discretion-laden determination’ ” (id. at 519, quoting Sutter v Reyes, 60 AD3d 448, 449 [1st Dept 2009]).

We have considered defendant’s remaining contentions and find them unavailing.

Concur — Acosta, J.P., Mazzarelli, Manzanet-Daniels, Gische and Kahn, JJ.

Cite This Page — Counsel Stack

Bluebook (online)

2017 NY Slip Op 3075, 149 A.D.3d 600, 50 N.Y.S.3d 291, Counsel Stack Legal Research, https://law.counselstack.com/opinion/deutsche-bank-ag-v-vik-nyappdiv-2017.

Opinion

Related

Cite This Page — Counsel Stack