Grace v. Sabal
Opinion
Grace v Sabal (2025 NY Slip Op 05572)
| Grace v Sabal |
| 2025 NY Slip Op 05572 |
| Decided on October 09, 2025 |
| Appellate Division, First Department |
| Published by New York State Law Reporting Bureau pursuant to Judiciary Law § 431. |
| This opinion is uncorrected and subject to revision before publication in the Official Reports. |
Decided and Entered: October 09, 2025
Before: Kern, J.P., Friedman, Kapnick, Gesmer, Rodriguez, JJ.
Index No. 952265/23|Appeal No. 4914-4915-4916|Case No. 2025-00378 2025-00382 2025-01821|
v
Seth Sabal et al., Defendants-Appellants.
Law Office of Carlos M. Carvajal, New York (Carlos M. Carvajal of counsel), for appellants.
McAllister Olivarius, New York (Dr. John F.O. McAllister of counsel), for respondent.
Order, Supreme Court, New York County (Leslie A. Stroth, J.), entered January 15, 2025, which denied defendants' motion to dismiss the complaint for improper service and granted plaintiff 60 days to serve defendants, unanimously affirmed, without costs. Order, same court and Justice, entered February 24, 2025, which found that plaintiff had previously effectuated alternate service as per a March 13, 2024 ex parte order, unanimously affirmed, without costs. Appeal from ex parte order, same court (Jennifer G. Schecter, J.), entered March 13, 2024, which extended plaintiff's time to serve the complaint to July 10, 2024 and provided for alternate service, unanimously dismissed, without costs, as taken from a nonappealable order.
Under the circumstances presented, the court providently denied defendants' cross-motion to dismiss the complaint for lack of personal jurisdiction over defendants, because plaintiff served defendants' counsel, who represented defendants in connection with another action, by email dated March 21, 2024, pursuant to the ex parte order (see CPLR 308[5]).
The court need not reach the issue of whether the trial court properly exercised its discretion to (i) grant plaintiff additional time to serve defendants with process for good cause shown and in the interests of justice or (ii) permit alternative service upon defendants' attorney in open court. The record is clear that plaintiff effectuated service on defendants prior to the court's January 15, 2025 order.
We have considered defendants' remaining arguments and find them unavailing.
THIS CONSTITUTES THE DECISION AND ORDER OF THE SUPREME COURT, APPELLATE DIVISION, FIRST DEPARTMENT.
ENTERED: October 9, 2025
Free access — add to your briefcase to read the full text and ask questions with AI
2025 NY Slip Op 05572 (Grace v. Sabal) — published by Counsel Stack Legal Research, free access to 12M+ legal documents.