Klosterman v. Federal Express Co.

271 A.D.2d 492, 706 N.Y.S.2d 912, 2000 N.Y. App. Div. LEXIS 4044
Appellate Division of the Supreme Court of the State of New York·Decided April 10, 2000·Published·Cited by 2 cases

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

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).

271 A.D.2d 492 (Klosterman v. Federal Express Co.) — published by Counsel Stack Legal Research, free access to 12M+ legal documents.

Related

Gibbons v. Court Officers' Benevolent Ass'n of Nassau County
78 A.D.3d 654 (Appellate Division of the Supreme Court of New York, 2010)
Bates v. Galligan
32 A.D.3d 834 (Appellate Division of the Supreme Court of New York, 2006)