Rodriguez v. MC Builders, Inc.

Appellate Division of the Supreme Court of New York

Rodriguez v. MC Builders, Inc.

18 A.D.3d 262, 793 N.Y.S.2d 918, 2005 N.Y. App. Div. LEXIS 5022

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

DecidedMay 10, 2005

StatusPublished

This text of 18 A.D.3d 262 (Rodriguez v. MC Builders, Inc.) 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

Rodriguez v. MC Builders, Inc., 18 A.D.3d 262, 793 N.Y.S.2d 918, 2005 N.Y. App. Div. LEXIS 5022 (N.Y. Ct. App. 2005).

Pincite

Opinion

— Order, Supreme Court, Bronx County (Anne E. Targum, J.), entered October 9, 2003, which, to the extent appealed from as [263]*263limited by the brief, denied defendants-appellants’ motion to dismiss the complaint pursuant to CPLR 3012 (b) and granted plaintiffs cross motion for an extension of time in which to serve her complaint, unanimously affirmed, without costs.

Plaintiff sues to recover for damage to her property allegedly caused by the collapse of an adjacent building. Plaintiffs delay in serving her complaint subsequent to defendants’ demand therefor was excusable under the particular circumstances presented and her supporting affidavit adequately demonstrates that she has a meritorious cause of action (cf. Jee Foo Realty Corp. v Lemle, 259 AD2d 401 [1999]). Concur—Mazzarelli, J.P., Ellerin, Nardelli, Williams and Catterson, JJ.

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

— Order, Supreme Court, Bronx County (Anne E. Targum, J.), entered October 9, 2003, which, to the extent appealed from as [263]*263limited by the brief, denied defendants-appellants’ motion to dismiss the complaint pursuant to CPLR 3012 (b) and granted plaintiffs cross motion for an extension of time in which to serve her complaint, unanimously affirmed, without costs.

Plaintiff sues to recover for damage to her property allegedly caused by the collapse of an adjacent building. Plaintiffs delay in serving her complaint subsequent to defendants’ demand therefor was excusable under the particular circumstances presented and her supporting affidavit adequately demonstrates that she has a meritorious cause of action (cf. Jee Foo Realty Corp. v Lemle, 259 AD2d 401 [1999]). Concur—Mazzarelli, J.P., Ellerin, Nardelli, Williams and Catterson, JJ.

Cite This Page — Counsel Stack

Bluebook (online)

18 A.D.3d 262, 793 N.Y.S.2d 918, 2005 N.Y. App. Div. LEXIS 5022, Counsel Stack Legal Research, https://law.counselstack.com/opinion/rodriguez-v-mc-builders-inc-nyappdiv-2005.

Opinion

Related

Cite This Page — Counsel Stack