Henderson v. New York Telephone Co.

Appellate Division of the Supreme Court of New York

Henderson v. New York Telephone Co.

82 A.D.2d 908, 441 N.Y.S.2d 430, 1981 N.Y. App. Div. LEXIS 14622

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

DecidedJune 29, 1981

StatusPublished

This text of 82 A.D.2d 908 (Henderson v. New York Telephone Co.) 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

Henderson v. New York Telephone Co., 82 A.D.2d 908, 441 N.Y.S.2d 430, 1981 N.Y. App. Div. LEXIS 14622 (N.Y. Ct. App. 1981).

Pincite

Opinion

In an action to recover damages for personal injuries, defendants Ross, Stanto and Karlan appeal from an order of the Supreme Court, Queens County (Zelman, J.), entered August 1, 1980, which denied their motion to dismiss the action for failure to serve a complaint and granted plaintiff’s cross motion to extend his time to serve a complaint. Order reversed, on the law, with $50 costs and disbursements, appellants’ motion granted, cross motion denied, and action dismissed as against appellants. Plaintiff has failed to satisfy his burden of showing that the delay in service of the complaint is excusable and that his claim is meritorious (see Barash v Micucci, 49 NY2d 594). Gulotta, J.P., Cohalan, O’Connor and Bracken, JJ., concur.

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

In an action to recover damages for personal injuries, defendants Ross, Stanto and Karlan appeal from an order of the Supreme Court, Queens County (Zelman, J.), entered August 1, 1980, which denied their motion to dismiss the action for failure to serve a complaint and granted plaintiff’s cross motion to extend his time to serve a complaint. Order reversed, on the law, with $50 costs and disbursements, appellants’ motion granted, cross motion denied, and action dismissed as against appellants. Plaintiff has failed to satisfy his burden of showing that the delay in service of the complaint is excusable and that his claim is meritorious (see Barash v Micucci, 49 NY2d 594). Gulotta, J.P., Cohalan, O’Connor and Bracken, JJ., concur.

Cite This Page — Counsel Stack

Bluebook (online)

82 A.D.2d 908, 441 N.Y.S.2d 430, 1981 N.Y. App. Div. LEXIS 14622, Counsel Stack Legal Research, https://law.counselstack.com/opinion/henderson-v-new-york-telephone-co-nyappdiv-1981.

Opinion

Related

Cite This Page — Counsel Stack