Jimenez v. City of New York

Appellate Division of the Supreme Court of New York

Jimenez v. City of New York

13 A.D.3d 107, 785 N.Y.S.2d 332, 2004 N.Y. App. Div. LEXIS 14826

Appellate Division of the Supreme Court of the State of New York·Decided December 7, 2004·Published·Cited by 5 cases

Opinion

Order, Supreme Court, Bronx County (Betty Owen Stinson, J.), entered on or about September 9, 2003, which, to the extent appealable, denied renewal of a prior motion for default judgment against the individual defendants, or, in the alternative, an extension of time to effect service on them, unanimously affirmed, without costs.

Although extensions of time should be liberally granted on good cause shown or in the interest of justice (CPLR 306-b; see Leader v Maroney, Ponzini & Spencer, 97 NY2d 95 [2001]), plaintiff made no showing of diligence, that the cause of action had merit, that there had been no undue delay in service, or that he had promptly requested the extension of time. Moreover, once the action was dismissed, plaintiff could no longer seek an extension of time to effect service (Sottile v Islandia Home for Adults, 278 AD2d 482, 483 [2000]). Concur—Tom, J.P., Saxe, Williams, Sweeny and Catterson, JJ.

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

Order, Supreme Court, Bronx County (Betty Owen Stinson, J.), entered on or about September 9, 2003, which, to the extent appealable, denied renewal of a prior motion for default judgment against the individual defendants, or, in the alternative, an extension of time to effect service on them, unanimously affirmed, without costs.

Although extensions of time should be liberally granted on good cause shown or in the interest of justice (CPLR 306-b; see Leader v Maroney, Ponzini & Spencer, 97 NY2d 95 [2001]), plaintiff made no showing of diligence, that the cause of action had merit, that there had been no undue delay in service, or that he had promptly requested the extension of time. Moreover, once the action was dismissed, plaintiff could no longer seek an extension of time to effect service (Sottile v Islandia Home for Adults, 278 AD2d 482, 483 [2000]). Concur—Tom, J.P., Saxe, Williams, Sweeny and Catterson, JJ.

Jimenez v. City of New York, 13 A.D.3d 107, 785 N.Y.S.2d 332, 2004 N.Y. App. Div. LEXIS 14826 (N.Y. Ct. App. 2004).

Pincite

13 A.D.3d 107 (Jimenez v. City of New York) — published by Counsel Stack Legal Research, free access to 12M+ legal documents.

Opinion

Related