Farage v. Garden State Veterinary Specialists, Inc.
This text of Farage v. Garden State Veterinary Specialists, Inc. (Farage v. Garden State Veterinary Specialists, Inc.) 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.
Opinion
It appears you are using Adblock. Please disable Adblock to best experience our website.
Bureau Thomas J.K. Smith, State Reporter
Farage v Garden State Veterinary Specialists, Inc.
2026 NY Slip Op 04178
July 1, 2026
Appellate Division, Second Department
Published by New York State Law Reporting Bureau pursuant to Judiciary Law § 431.
This decision is uncorrected and subject to revision before publication in the Official Reports.
Regina Farage, appellant,
v
Garden State Veterinary Specialists, Inc., et al., respondents, et al., defendants.
Supreme Court of the State of New York, Appellate Division, Second Judicial Department
Decided on July 1, 2026
2024-05345, 2024-10494, (Index No. 150387/22)
Mark C. Dillon, J.P.
Angela G. Iannacci
Deborah A. Dowling
James P. McCormack, JJ.
Regina Farage, Staten Island, NY, appellant pro se.
Guararra Law Firm, Garden City, NY (Michael J. Guararra and Melissa Johnston of counsel), for respondents Garden State Veterinary Specialists, Inc., Garden State Veterinary Services, Inc., Garden State Veterinary Specialists, KTDM, a Limited Liability Company, TPKD, LLC, Patricia Smillie-Scavelli, Thomas Scavelli, Ron Achiel, and Matias Larrosa.
Connors & Connors, P.C., Staten Island, NY (Joseph J. Carcagno of counsel), for respondents Greater Staten Island Veterinary Services, P.C., Greater Staten Island Veterinary Services, and Allison Szarejko.
DECISION & ORDER
In an action, inter alia, to recover damages for veterinary malpractice, the plaintiff appeals from (1) an order of the Supreme Court, Richmond County (Lizette Colon, J.), dated May 1, 2024, and (2) an order of the same court dated September 9, 2024. The order dated May 1, 2024, granted the separate motions of the defendant Patricia Smillie-Scavelli, the defendants Garden State Veterinary Specialists, Inc., Garden State Veterinary Services, Inc., Garden State Veterinary Specialists, KTDM, a Limited Liability Company, TPKD, LLC, Thomas Scavelli, Ron Achiel, and Matias Larrosa, and the defendants Greater Staten Island Veterinary Services, P.C., Greater Staten Island Veterinary Services, and Allison Szarejko pursuant to CPLR 3211(a)(8) to dismiss the action insofar as asserted against each of them for lack of personal jurisdiction, and denied the plaintiff's cross-motion pursuant to CPLR 306-b to extend the time to serve the defendants with the summons with notice, to consolidate this action with another action, and for leave to enter a default judgment against certain defendants. The order dated September 9, 2024, insofar as appealed from, denied that branch of the plaintiff's motion which was for leave to renew (1) her opposition to the separate motions of the defendant Patricia Smillie-Scavelli, the defendants Garden State Veterinary Specialists, Inc., Garden State Veterinary Services, Inc., Garden State Veterinary Specialists, KTDM, a Limited Liability Company, TPKD, LLC, Thomas Scavelli, Ron Achiel, and Matias Larrosa, and the defendants Greater Staten Island Veterinary Services, P.C., Greater Staten Island Veterinary Services, and Allison Szarejko pursuant to CPLR 3211(a)(8) to dismiss the action insofar as asserted against each of them for lack of personal jurisdiction and (2) her cross-motion pursuant to CPLR 306-b to extend the time to serve the defendants with the summons with notice, to consolidate this action with another action, and for leave to enter a default judgment against certain defendants.
ORDERED that the order dated May 1, 2024, is affirmed; and it is further,
ORDERED that the order dated September 9, 2024, is affirmed insofar as appealed from; and it is further,
ORDERED that one bill of costs is awarded to the respondents appearing separately and filing separate briefs.
On March 1, 2022, the plaintiff filed a summons with notice alleging, inter alia, veterinary malpractice against, among others, the defendants Garden State Veterinary Specialists, Inc., Garden State Veterinary Services, Inc., Garden State Veterinary Specialists, KTDM, a Limited Liability Company, TPKD, LLC, Patricia Smillie-Scavelli, Thomas Scavelli, Ron Achiel, and Matias Larrosa (hereinafter collectively the NJ defendants), and the defendants Greater Staten Island Veterinary Services, P.C., Greater Staten Island Veterinary Services, and Allison Szarejko (hereinafter collectively the SI defendants). At the same time, the plaintiff was engaged in litigation in New Jersey against the same defendants based on similar allegations.
On September 27 and 28, 2023, more than 18 months after the plaintiff filed the summons with notice, the plaintiff served the defendants with the summons with notice. Smillie-Scavelli, the remainder of the NJ defendants, and the SI defendants separately moved pursuant to CPLR 3211(a)(8) to dismiss the action insofar as asserted against each of them for lack of personal jurisdiction due to untimely service. The plaintiff cross-moved pursuant to CPLR 306-b to extend the time to serve the defendants with the summons with notice, to consolidate this action with another action, and for leave to enter a default judgment against certain defendants. In an order dated May 1, 2024, the Supreme Court granted the separate motions and denied the cross-motion. The plaintiff appeals from this order.
Thereafter, the plaintiff moved, among other things, for leave to renew her opposition to the separate motions of Smillie-Scavelli, the remainder of NJ defendants, and the SI defendants pursuant to CPLR 3211(a)(8) to dismiss the action insofar as asserted against each of them and her cross-motion. In an order dated September 9, 2024, the Supreme Court, inter alia, denied that branch of the plaintiff's motion which was for leave to renew. The plaintiff appeals from this order.
"Pursuant to CPLR 306-b, a court may, in the exercise of discretion, grant a motion for an extension of time to effect service for 'good cause shown' or 'in the interest of justice'" (BAC Home Loans Servicing, L.P. v Tessler, 208 AD3d 619, 621, quoting CPLR 306-b; see Leader v Maroney, Ponzini & Spencer, 97 NY2d 95, 104). "To establish good cause, a plaintiff must demonstrate reasonable diligence in attempting service" (Wells Fargo Bank, N.A. v Fameux, 201 AD3d 1012, 1014). Under the interest of justice standard, "the court may consider diligence, or lack thereof, along with any other relevant factor in making its determination, including expiration of the Statute of Limitations, the meritorious nature of the cause of action, the length of delay in service, the promptness of a plaintiff's request for the extension of time, and prejudice to [the] defendant" (Leader v Maroney, Ponzini & Spencer, 97 NY2d at 105-106).
Here, the plaintiff failed to demonstrate reasonable diligence in attempting service upon the defendants, and therefore, she was not entitled to an extension for good cause (see Wells Fargo Bank, N.A. v Fameux, 201 AD3d at 1014; Butters v Payne, 176 AD3d 1028, 1028-1029).
Free access — add to your briefcase to read the full text and ask questions with AI
Related
Cite This Page — Counsel Stack
Farage v. Garden State Veterinary Specialists, Inc., Counsel Stack Legal Research, https://law.counselstack.com/opinion/farage-v-garden-state-veterinary-specialists-inc-nyappdiv-2026.