Mendez v. New York Methodist Hospital

Appellate Division of the Supreme Court of New York

Mendez v. New York Methodist Hospital

87 A.D.3d 1114, 929 N.Y.2d 873

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

DecidedSeptember 27, 2011

StatusPublished

This text of 87 A.D.3d 1114 (Mendez v. New York Methodist Hospital) 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

Mendez v. New York Methodist Hospital, 87 A.D.3d 1114, 929 N.Y.2d 873 (N.Y. Ct. App. 2011).

Pincite

Opinion

[1115]*1115Upon reargument, the Supreme Court properly adhered to its original determination denying that branch of the appellants’ cross motion which was pursuant to CPLR 3211 (a) (8) to dismiss the complaint insofar as asserted against them for lack of personal jurisdiction. The court also properly, in effect, granted that branch of the plaintiffs prior motion which was to extend her time to serve the appellants pursuant to CPLR 306-b. A consideration of the relevant factors, as revealed in the record, supported the extension (see Leader v Maroney, Ponzini & Spencer, 97 NY2d 95, 105-106 [2001]; Bumpus v New York City Tr. Auth., 66 AD3d 26, 31-32 [2009]; see also Earle v Valente, 302 AD2d 353, 354 [2003]; Sean Uk Lee v Corso, 300 AD2d 385, 386 [2002]; Citron v Schlossberg, 282 AD2d 642 [2001]). Dillon, J.P, Angiolillo, Dickerson and Cohen, JJ., concur.

Free access — add to your briefcase to read the full text and ask questions with AI

[1115]*1115Upon reargument, the Supreme Court properly adhered to its original determination denying that branch of the appellants’ cross motion which was pursuant to CPLR 3211 (a) (8) to dismiss the complaint insofar as asserted against them for lack of personal jurisdiction. The court also properly, in effect, granted that branch of the plaintiffs prior motion which was to extend her time to serve the appellants pursuant to CPLR 306-b. A consideration of the relevant factors, as revealed in the record, supported the extension (see Leader v Maroney, Ponzini & Spencer, 97 NY2d 95, 105-106 [2001]; Bumpus v New York City Tr. Auth., 66 AD3d 26, 31-32 [2009]; see also Earle v Valente, 302 AD2d 353, 354 [2003]; Sean Uk Lee v Corso, 300 AD2d 385, 386 [2002]; Citron v Schlossberg, 282 AD2d 642 [2001]). Dillon, J.P, Angiolillo, Dickerson and Cohen, JJ., concur.

Cite This Page — Counsel Stack

Bluebook (online)

87 A.D.3d 1114, 929 N.Y.2d 873, Counsel Stack Legal Research, https://law.counselstack.com/opinion/mendez-v-new-york-methodist-hospital-nyappdiv-2011.

Opinion

Related

Cite This Page — Counsel Stack