ISA Orlovic v. McGuinness

Appellate Division of the Supreme Court of New York

ISA Orlovic v. McGuinness

301 A.D.2d 629, 753 N.Y.S.2d 871

Appellate Division of the Supreme Court of the State of New York·Decided January 27, 2003·Published

Opinion

—In an action to recover damages for personal injuries, etc., the plaintiffs appeal from an order of the Supreme Court, Queens County (Satterfield, J.), dated [630]*630August 27, 2001, which granted the defendant’s motion pursuant to CPLR 3211 to dismiss the complaint.

Ordered that the order is affirmed, with costs.

The Supreme Court properly granted the defendant’s motion to dismiss the complaint. By order dated September 18, 2000, the plaintiffs time to serve the defendant with a summons and complaint was extended pursuant to CPLR 306-b. Eight months subsequent to that order, the plaintiffs still had not served the defendant. Considering the extended delay in service, the plaintiffs’ lack of diligence in effecting service, the prejudice to the defendant as a result of the delay, and the absence of a reasonable excuse for the delay, the plaintiffs are not entitled to an additional extension of time to effectuate service (see Leader v Maroney, Ponzini & Spencer, 97 NY2d 95; Ludemann v Maisel, 292 AD2d 428; Rihal v Kirchhoff, 291 AD2d 548; Carbonaro v Maimonides Med. Ctr., 289 AD2d 437). Krausman, J.P., Friedmann, Mastro and Rivera, 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, etc., the plaintiffs appeal from an order of the Supreme Court, Queens County (Satterfield, J.), dated [630]*630August 27, 2001, which granted the defendant’s motion pursuant to CPLR 3211 to dismiss the complaint.

Ordered that the order is affirmed, with costs.

The Supreme Court properly granted the defendant’s motion to dismiss the complaint. By order dated September 18, 2000, the plaintiffs time to serve the defendant with a summons and complaint was extended pursuant to CPLR 306-b. Eight months subsequent to that order, the plaintiffs still had not served the defendant. Considering the extended delay in service, the plaintiffs’ lack of diligence in effecting service, the prejudice to the defendant as a result of the delay, and the absence of a reasonable excuse for the delay, the plaintiffs are not entitled to an additional extension of time to effectuate service (see Leader v Maroney, Ponzini & Spencer, 97 NY2d 95; Ludemann v Maisel, 292 AD2d 428; Rihal v Kirchhoff, 291 AD2d 548; Carbonaro v Maimonides Med. Ctr., 289 AD2d 437). Krausman, J.P., Friedmann, Mastro and Rivera, JJ., concur.

ISA Orlovic v. McGuinness, 301 A.D.2d 629, 753 N.Y.S.2d 871 (N.Y. Ct. App. 2003).

Pincite

301 A.D.2d 629 (ISA Orlovic v. McGuinness) — published by Counsel Stack Legal Research, free access to 12M+ legal documents.

Opinion

Related