McKenzie v. Metellus
92 A.D.3d 735, 938 N.Y.2d 466
Appellate Division of the Supreme Court of the State of New York·Decided February 14, 2012·Published
Opinion
Contrary to the plaintiffs’ contentions, the Supreme Court did not improvidently exercise its discretion in denying their cross motion to extend their time to serve the summons and complaint pursuant to CPLR 306-b. The plaintiffs did not demonstrate circumstances that would support the grant of such relief in the interests of justice or for good cause shown (see Otero v Flushing Hosp., 300 AD2d 639, 640 [2002]; Rihal v Kirchhoff, 291 AD2d 548 [2002]). Angiolillo, J.P., Florio, Leventhal and Lott, JJ., concur.
Free access — add to your briefcase to read the full text and ask questions with AI
McKenzie v. Metellus, 92 A.D.3d 735, 938 N.Y.2d 466 (N.Y. Ct. App. 2012).
92 A.D.3d 735 (McKenzie v. Metellus) — published by Counsel Stack Legal Research, free access to 12M+ legal documents.
Related
Rihal v. Kirchhoff
291 A.D.2d 548 (Appellate Division of the Supreme Court of New York, 2002)
Otero v. Flushing Hospital
300 A.D.2d 639 (Appellate Division of the Supreme Court of New York, 2002)