Gilkes v. New York Wholesale Paper Corp.

Appellate Division of the Supreme Court of New York

Gilkes v. New York Wholesale Paper Corp.

89 A.D.3d 534, 933 N.Y.2d 226

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

DecidedNovember 15, 2011

StatusPublished

Cited by1 cases

This text of 89 A.D.3d 534 (Gilkes v. New York Wholesale Paper 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

Gilkes v. New York Wholesale Paper Corp., 89 A.D.3d 534, 933 N.Y.2d 226 (N.Y. Ct. App. 2011).

Pincite

Opinion

The IAS court providently exercised its discretion, in the interest of justice, by granting plaintiffs motion for an extension of time to serve the summons and complaint. The court properly considered pertinent factors such as plaintiffs showing of merit, the expiration of the statute of limitations, the prompt receipt of plaintiffs notice of claim by defendant’s insurer, and the failure of defendant’s employee to provide contact information for himself or defendant at the time of the accident (see [535]*535Leader v Maroney, Ponzini & Spencer, 97 NY2d 95, 105-106 [2001]; Sutter v Reyes, 60 AD3d 448 [2009]; Estey-Dorsa v Chavez, 27 AD3d 277, 278 [2006]). Concur — Mazzarelli, J.P., Catterson, Moskowitz, Renwick and Abdus-Salaam, JJ.

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

The IAS court providently exercised its discretion, in the interest of justice, by granting plaintiffs motion for an extension of time to serve the summons and complaint. The court properly considered pertinent factors such as plaintiffs showing of merit, the expiration of the statute of limitations, the prompt receipt of plaintiffs notice of claim by defendant’s insurer, and the failure of defendant’s employee to provide contact information for himself or defendant at the time of the accident (see [535]*535Leader v Maroney, Ponzini & Spencer, 97 NY2d 95, 105-106 [2001]; Sutter v Reyes, 60 AD3d 448 [2009]; Estey-Dorsa v Chavez, 27 AD3d 277, 278 [2006]). Concur — Mazzarelli, J.P., Catterson, Moskowitz, Renwick and Abdus-Salaam, JJ.

Cite This Page — Counsel Stack

Bluebook (online)

89 A.D.3d 534, 933 N.Y.2d 226, Counsel Stack Legal Research, https://law.counselstack.com/opinion/gilkes-v-new-york-wholesale-paper-corp-nyappdiv-2011.

Opinion

Related

Cite This Page — Counsel Stack