Lai Har Chin v. Yard

Appellate Division of the Supreme Court of New York

Lai Har Chin v. Yard

40 A.D.3d 590, 833 N.Y.S.2d 405

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

DecidedMay 1, 2007

StatusPublished

Cited by2 cases

This text of 40 A.D.3d 590 (Lai Har Chin v. Yard) 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

Lai Har Chin v. Yard, 40 A.D.3d 590, 833 N.Y.S.2d 405 (N.Y. Ct. App. 2007).

Pincite

Opinion

In an action to recover damages for

personal injuries, the defendant appeals from so much of an order of the Supreme Court, Kings County (Johnson, J.), dated September 14, 2006, as denied his motion to dismiss the complaint pursuant to CFLR 3012 (b).

Ordered that the order is affirmed insofar as appealed from, with costs.

The defendant waived late service of the complaint by accept[591]*591ing and retaining the complaint, without objection, before moving to dismiss the complaint pursuant to CPLR 3012 (b) approximately eight months later (see Ligotti v Wilson, 287 AD2d 550, 551 [2001]; Chiulli v Coyne, 210 AD2d 450 [1994]; Myers v Empire State Bldg., 53 AD2d 662, 663 [1976]). Accordingly, the Supreme Court providently exercised its discretion in denying the defendant’s motion to dismiss. Mastro, J.P., Ritter, Skelos, Garni and McCarthy, 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, the defendant appeals from so much of an order of the Supreme Court, Kings County (Johnson, J.), dated September 14, 2006, as denied his motion to dismiss the complaint pursuant to CFLR 3012 (b).

Ordered that the order is affirmed insofar as appealed from, with costs.

The defendant waived late service of the complaint by accept[591]*591ing and retaining the complaint, without objection, before moving to dismiss the complaint pursuant to CPLR 3012 (b) approximately eight months later (see Ligotti v Wilson, 287 AD2d 550, 551 [2001]; Chiulli v Coyne, 210 AD2d 450 [1994]; Myers v Empire State Bldg., 53 AD2d 662, 663 [1976]). Accordingly, the Supreme Court providently exercised its discretion in denying the defendant’s motion to dismiss. Mastro, J.P., Ritter, Skelos, Garni and McCarthy, JJ., concur.

Cite This Page — Counsel Stack

Bluebook (online)

40 A.D.3d 590, 833 N.Y.S.2d 405, Counsel Stack Legal Research, https://law.counselstack.com/opinion/lai-har-chin-v-yard-nyappdiv-2007.

Opinion

Related

Cite This Page — Counsel Stack