Greenburgh Central School District No. 7 v. Westchester County Human Rights Commission

Appellate Division of the Supreme Court of New York

Greenburgh Central School District No. 7 v. Westchester County Human Rights Commission

82 A.D.3d 980, 918 N.Y.2d 737

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

DecidedMarch 15, 2011

StatusPublished

Cited by1 cases

This text of 82 A.D.3d 980 (Greenburgh Central School District No. 7 v. Westchester County Human Rights Commission) 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

Greenburgh Central School District No. 7 v. Westchester County Human Rights Commission, 82 A.D.3d 980, 918 N.Y.2d 737 (N.Y. Ct. App. 2011).

Pincite

Opinion

[981]*981It is undisputed that the petitioners failed to properly serve the respondent with the notice of petition and petition in accordance with CPLR 312 (see Matter of Heinisch v Goehringer, 121 AD2d 721 [1986]). The petitioners failed to demonstrate good cause for an extension of time to serve, and failed to show that such an extension is warranted in the interest of justice (see CPLR 306-b). Among other things, the petitioners failed to demonstrate diligence in their attempt at service, and failed to demonstrate a potentially meritorious argument in support of the petition. Accordingly, the Supreme Court properly granted that branch of the respondent’s motion which was to dismiss the proceeding for lack of personal jurisdiction and denied that branch of the petitioners’ cross motion which was to extend the time to serve the notice of petition and petition (see Leader v Maroney, Ponzini & Spencer, 97 NY2d 95, 105-106 [2001]; Calloway v Wells, 79 AD3d 786 [2010]; Redman v South Is. Orthopaedic Group, P.C., 78 AD3d 1147 [2010]). Rivera, J.R, Balkin, Leventhal and Hall, JJ., concur.

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

[981]*981It is undisputed that the petitioners failed to properly serve the respondent with the notice of petition and petition in accordance with CPLR 312 (see Matter of Heinisch v Goehringer, 121 AD2d 721 [1986]). The petitioners failed to demonstrate good cause for an extension of time to serve, and failed to show that such an extension is warranted in the interest of justice (see CPLR 306-b). Among other things, the petitioners failed to demonstrate diligence in their attempt at service, and failed to demonstrate a potentially meritorious argument in support of the petition. Accordingly, the Supreme Court properly granted that branch of the respondent’s motion which was to dismiss the proceeding for lack of personal jurisdiction and denied that branch of the petitioners’ cross motion which was to extend the time to serve the notice of petition and petition (see Leader v Maroney, Ponzini & Spencer, 97 NY2d 95, 105-106 [2001]; Calloway v Wells, 79 AD3d 786 [2010]; Redman v South Is. Orthopaedic Group, P.C., 78 AD3d 1147 [2010]). Rivera, J.R, Balkin, Leventhal and Hall, JJ., concur.

Cite This Page — Counsel Stack

Bluebook (online)

82 A.D.3d 980, 918 N.Y.2d 737, Counsel Stack Legal Research, https://law.counselstack.com/opinion/greenburgh-central-school-district-no-7-v-westchester-county-human-rights-nyappdiv-2011.

Opinion

Related

Cite This Page — Counsel Stack