McKenzie v. Metellus

Appellate Division of the Supreme Court of New York

McKenzie v. Metellus

92 A.D.3d 735, 938 N.Y.2d 466

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

DecidedFebruary 14, 2012

StatusPublished

This text of 92 A.D.3d 735 (McKenzie v. Metellus) 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

McKenzie v. Metellus, 92 A.D.3d 735, 938 N.Y.2d 466 (N.Y. Ct. App. 2012).

Pincite

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

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.

Cite This Page — Counsel Stack

Bluebook (online)

92 A.D.3d 735, 938 N.Y.2d 466, Counsel Stack Legal Research, https://law.counselstack.com/opinion/mckenzie-v-metellus-nyappdiv-2012.

Opinion

Related

Cite This Page — Counsel Stack