McKenney v. Beth Abraham Family of Health Services
This text of 99 A.D.3d 630 (McKenney v. Beth Abraham Family of Health Services) 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.
Opinion
The motion court providently exercised its discretion in extending plaintiffs’ time to serve process in the “interest of justice” (see CPLR 306-b). The court appropriately considered that the statute of limitations had expired, that MNH was on actual notice of the action within the 120-day period and that it [631]*631would not be prejudiced by the extension (see Leader v Maroney, Ponzini & Spencer, 97 NY2d 95, 105-106 [2001]; Hernandez v Abdul-Salaam, 93 AD3d 522 [1st Dept 2012]). Moreover, the physician’s affidavit submitted by plaintiffs was sufficient, at the pre-discovery stage, to show a meritorious cause of action (see e.g. Henneberry v Borstein, 91 AD3d 493, 496 [1st Dept 2012]). Concur — Mazzarelli, J.E, Sweeny, Renwick, Richter and Román, JJ.
Free access — add to your briefcase to read the full text and ask questions with AI
Related
Cite This Page — Counsel Stack
99 A.D.3d 630, 952 N.Y.2d 878, Counsel Stack Legal Research, https://law.counselstack.com/opinion/mckenney-v-beth-abraham-family-of-health-services-nyappdiv-2012.