Felter v. 217 Centre Corp.

Appellate Division of the Supreme Court of New York

Felter v. 217 Centre Corp.

38 A.D.2d 840, 330 N.Y.S.2d 476, 1972 N.Y. App. Div. LEXIS 5401

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

DecidedFebruary 14, 1972

StatusPublished

This text of 38 A.D.2d 840 (Felter v. 217 Centre Corp.) 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

Felter v. 217 Centre Corp., 38 A.D.2d 840, 330 N.Y.S.2d 476, 1972 N.Y. App. Div. LEXIS 5401 (N.Y. Ct. App. 1972).

Pincite

Opinion

In a negligence action to recover damages for personal injuries, defendants appeal from an order of the Supreme Court, Rockland County, dated July 10, 1969, which denied their motion to dismiss the action for failure to serve a complaint (CPLR 3012, subd. [b]). Order reversed, without costs, and motion granted. The motion to dismiss the action was made after close to three years had elapsed since a demand was made for service of a copy of the complaint. The complaint was served after the motion was made. No acceptable justification has been offered for such an inordinate delay. Accordingly, we think that it was an improvident exercise of discretion for the Special Term to deny the motion (Kroner v. Flora, 35 A D 2d 835; Welsh v. Kaskell, 33 A D 2d 803; Kushniruk v. Gorezyca, 25 A D 2d 615). Martuscello, Acting P. J., Shapiro, Gulotta, Christ and Benjamin, JJ., concur.

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

In a negligence action to recover damages for personal injuries, defendants appeal from an order of the Supreme Court, Rockland County, dated July 10, 1969, which denied their motion to dismiss the action for failure to serve a complaint (CPLR 3012, subd. [b]). Order reversed, without costs, and motion granted. The motion to dismiss the action was made after close to three years had elapsed since a demand was made for service of a copy of the complaint. The complaint was served after the motion was made. No acceptable justification has been offered for such an inordinate delay. Accordingly, we think that it was an improvident exercise of discretion for the Special Term to deny the motion (Kroner v. Flora, 35 A D 2d 835; Welsh v. Kaskell, 33 A D 2d 803; Kushniruk v. Gorezyca, 25 A D 2d 615). Martuscello, Acting P. J., Shapiro, Gulotta, Christ and Benjamin, JJ., concur.

Cite This Page — Counsel Stack

Bluebook (online)

38 A.D.2d 840, 330 N.Y.S.2d 476, 1972 N.Y. App. Div. LEXIS 5401, Counsel Stack Legal Research, https://law.counselstack.com/opinion/felter-v-217-centre-corp-nyappdiv-1972.