Ekbatani v. Rockefeller Center Properties

Appellate Division of the Supreme Court of New York

Ekbatani v. Rockefeller Center Properties

30 A.D.3d 347, 816 N.Y.S.2d 909

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

DecidedJune 29, 2006

StatusPublished

Cited by3 cases

This text of 30 A.D.3d 347 (Ekbatani v. Rockefeller Center Properties) 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

Ekbatani v. Rockefeller Center Properties, 30 A.D.3d 347, 816 N.Y.S.2d 909 (N.Y. Ct. App. 2006).

Pincite

Opinion

Order, Supreme Court, New York County (Joan A. Madden, J.), entered on or about April 4, 2005, which granted the motion on behalf of defendant Rockefeller Center Ice Skating Rink to dismiss the complaint and denied plaintiffs cross motion to extend the time for service, unanimously affirmed, without costs.

Plaintiff failed to serve defendants within the required 120-day period (CPLR 306-b). In view of such lack of diligence and the long delay in notifying' defendants of this action, an extension of time to serve was unwarranted, and dismissal was appropriate (Slate v Schiavone Constr. Co., 4 NY3d 816 [2005]; Yardeni v Manhattan Eye, Ear & Throat Hosp., 9 AD3d 296 [2004], lv denied 4 NY3d 704 [2005]). Concur—Buckley, RJ., Sullivan, Williams, Catterson and McGuire, JJ.

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

Order, Supreme Court, New York County (Joan A. Madden, J.), entered on or about April 4, 2005, which granted the motion on behalf of defendant Rockefeller Center Ice Skating Rink to dismiss the complaint and denied plaintiffs cross motion to extend the time for service, unanimously affirmed, without costs.

Plaintiff failed to serve defendants within the required 120-day period (CPLR 306-b). In view of such lack of diligence and the long delay in notifying' defendants of this action, an extension of time to serve was unwarranted, and dismissal was appropriate (Slate v Schiavone Constr. Co., 4 NY3d 816 [2005]; Yardeni v Manhattan Eye, Ear & Throat Hosp., 9 AD3d 296 [2004], lv denied 4 NY3d 704 [2005]). Concur—Buckley, RJ., Sullivan, Williams, Catterson and McGuire, JJ.

Cite This Page — Counsel Stack

Bluebook (online)

30 A.D.3d 347, 816 N.Y.S.2d 909, Counsel Stack Legal Research, https://law.counselstack.com/opinion/ekbatani-v-rockefeller-center-properties-nyappdiv-2006.

Opinion

Related

Cite This Page — Counsel Stack