Petracca v. Hudson Tower Owners LLC

139 A.D.3d 518, 30 N.Y.S.3d 545

Opinion

Order, Supreme Court, New York County (Manuel J. Mendez, J.), entered November 20, 2014, which granted plaintiff’s motion for an order extending his time to effectuate service on defendant Niall Lawlor, unanimously affirmed, without costs.

The motion court providently exercised its discretion in granting plaintiff’s motion for an extension. Although plaintiff delayed in moving for an extension, other relevant factors weighed in favor of granting plaintiff’s motion, including plaintiff’s diligence, the expiration of the statute of limitations on plaintiff’s intentional tort claims, and the absence of any prejudice to defendant, given his actual notice of the summons and complaint (Leader v Maroney, Ponzini & Spencer, 97 NY2d 95, 105-106 [2001]).

Moreover, where “some factors weigh in favor of granting an interest of justice extension and some do not, we should not disturb Supreme Court’s discretion-laden determination” (Sutter v Reyes, 60 AD3d 448, 449 [1st Dept 2009]).

Concur — Mazzarelli, J.P., Moskowitz, Manzanet-Daniels and Gesmer, JJ.