Home/Appellate Division of the Supreme Court of New York/Rihal v. Kirchhoff

Rihal v. Kirchhoff

291 A.D.2d 548, 737 N.Y.S.2d 872, 2002 N.Y. App. Div. LEXIS 1940
CourtAppellate Division of the Supreme Court of the State of New York
DecidedFebruary 25, 2002
StatusPublished
Cited by15 cases

This text of 291 A.D.2d 548 (Rihal v. Kirchhoff) 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
Rihal v. Kirchhoff, 291 A.D.2d 548, 737 N.Y.S.2d 872, 2002 N.Y. App. Div. LEXIS 1940 (N.Y. Ct. App. 2002).

Opinion

—In an action to recover damages for personal injuries, the plaintiff appeáls from an order of the Supreme Court, Nassau County (Carter, J.), dated April 27, 2001, which denied his motion to extend the time in which to serve the summons and complaint.

Ordered that the order is affirmed, with costs.

The Supreme Court providently exercised its discretion in denying the plaintiffs motion to extend the time in which to serve the defendant pursuant to CPLR 306-b, despite the expiration of the statute of limitations. The record demonstrates an extended delay in service, a lack of diligence in effecting service, the failure to promptly and properly move for an extension of time, and the complete failure to demonstrate the existence of a meritorious action (see, Leader v Maroney, Ponzini & Spencer, 97 NY2d 95; Carbonaro v Maimonides Med. Ctr., 289 AD2d 437). Accordingly, the plaintiff failed to establish good cause for an extension or that the interests of justice would be served by an extension. Ritter, J.P., Smith, Krausman and Townes, JJ., concur.

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

Related

Loza v. Alluri
94 A.D.3d 824 (Appellate Division of the Supreme Court of New York, 2012)
McKenzie v. Metellus
92 A.D.3d 735 (Appellate Division of the Supreme Court of New York, 2012)
Velez v. ABC Auto & Glass
65 A.D.3d 1138 (Appellate Division of the Supreme Court of New York, 2009)
Crystal v. Lisnow
56 A.D.2d 713 (Appellate Division of the Supreme Court of New York, 2008)
American Telephone & Telegraph Co. v. Schnabel Foundation Co.
38 A.D.3d 580 (Appellate Division of the Supreme Court of New York, 2007)
Gem Flooring, Inc. v. Kings Park Industries, Inc.
27 A.D.3d 617 (Appellate Division of the Supreme Court of New York, 2006)
Baione v. Central Suffolk Hospital
14 A.D.3d 635 (Appellate Division of the Supreme Court of New York, 2005)
Tarzy v. Epstein
8 A.D.3d 656 (Appellate Division of the Supreme Court of New York, 2004)
Burwell v. Yonkers General Hospital
6 A.D.3d 478 (Appellate Division of the Supreme Court of New York, 2004)
Stuart v. Gimpel
2 A.D.3d 625 (Appellate Division of the Supreme Court of New York, 2003)
ISA Orlovic v. McGuinness
301 A.D.2d 629 (Appellate Division of the Supreme Court of New York, 2003)
Otero v. Flushing Hospital
300 A.D.2d 639 (Appellate Division of the Supreme Court of New York, 2002)
Winter v. Irizarry
300 A.D.2d 472 (Appellate Division of the Supreme Court of New York, 2002)
Leadbeater v. Beaubrun
299 A.D.2d 458 (Appellate Division of the Supreme Court of New York, 2002)
DeSilva v. Town of Brookhaven
299 A.D.2d 409 (Appellate Division of the Supreme Court of New York, 2002)

Cite This Page — Counsel Stack

Bluebook (online)
291 A.D.2d 548, 737 N.Y.S.2d 872, 2002 N.Y. App. Div. LEXIS 1940, Counsel Stack Legal Research, https://law.counselstack.com/opinion/rihal-v-kirchhoff-nyappdiv-2002.