Klosterman v. Federal Express Co.

Appellate Division of the Supreme Court of New York

Klosterman v. Federal Express Co.

271 A.D.2d 492, 706 N.Y.S.2d 912, 2000 N.Y. App. Div. LEXIS 4044

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

DecidedApril 10, 2000

StatusPublished

Cited by2 cases

This text of 271 A.D.2d 492 (Klosterman v. Federal Express 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

Klosterman v. Federal Express Co., 271 A.D.2d 492, 706 N.Y.S.2d 912, 2000 N.Y. App. Div. LEXIS 4044 (N.Y. Ct. App. 2000).

Pincite

Opinion

—In an action to recover damages for personal injuries, etc., the defendants Federal Express Company and “John Doe” appeal from an order of the Supreme Court, Queens County (Posner, J.), dated May 18, 1999, which denied their motion pursuant to CPLR 3012 (b) to dismiss the complaint insofar as asserted against them.

Ordered that the order is affirmed, with costs.

Given the short delay and the lack of any prejudice, the Supreme Court providently exercised its discretion in denying the appellants’ motion to dismiss the action pursuant to CPLR 3012 (b) based upon the plaintiffs’ failure to timely serve a. complaint after a demand therefor was made (see, Kramer v Rosenthal, 204 AD2d 406; Reuter v Schroeder, 195 AD2d 543; Gordineer v Gallagher, 160 AD2d 672; Rait v Bauer, 121 AD2d [493]*493704). O’Brien, J. P., Altman, Friedmann, McGinity and Smith, 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 defendants Federal Express Company and “John Doe” appeal from an order of the Supreme Court, Queens County (Posner, J.), dated May 18, 1999, which denied their motion pursuant to CPLR 3012 (b) to dismiss the complaint insofar as asserted against them.

Ordered that the order is affirmed, with costs.

Given the short delay and the lack of any prejudice, the Supreme Court providently exercised its discretion in denying the appellants’ motion to dismiss the action pursuant to CPLR 3012 (b) based upon the plaintiffs’ failure to timely serve a. complaint after a demand therefor was made (see, Kramer v Rosenthal, 204 AD2d 406; Reuter v Schroeder, 195 AD2d 543; Gordineer v Gallagher, 160 AD2d 672; Rait v Bauer, 121 AD2d [493]*493704). O’Brien, J. P., Altman, Friedmann, McGinity and Smith, JJ., concur.

Cite This Page — Counsel Stack

Bluebook (online)

271 A.D.2d 492, 706 N.Y.S.2d 912, 2000 N.Y. App. Div. LEXIS 4044, Counsel Stack Legal Research, https://law.counselstack.com/opinion/klosterman-v-federal-express-co-nyappdiv-2000.

Opinion

Related

Cite This Page — Counsel Stack