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

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

DecidedDecember 7, 2004

StatusPublished

Cited by5 cases

This text of 13 A.D.3d 107 (Jimenez v. City of New York) 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

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

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.

Cite This Page — Counsel Stack

Bluebook (online)

13 A.D.3d 107, 785 N.Y.S.2d 332, 2004 N.Y. App. Div. LEXIS 14826, Counsel Stack Legal Research, https://law.counselstack.com/opinion/jimenez-v-city-of-new-york-nyappdiv-2004.

Opinion

Related

Cite This Page — Counsel Stack