Savino v. Mobil Oil Corp.

Appellate Division of the Supreme Court of New York

Savino v. Mobil Oil Corp.

284 A.D.2d 387, 726 N.Y.S.2d 289, 2001 N.Y. App. Div. LEXIS 6045

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

DecidedJune 11, 2001

StatusPublished

This text of 284 A.D.2d 387 (Savino v. Mobil Oil Corp.) 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

Savino v. Mobil Oil Corp., 284 A.D.2d 387, 726 N.Y.S.2d 289, 2001 N.Y. App. Div. LEXIS 6045 (N.Y. Ct. App. 2001).

Pincite

Opinion

—In an action to recover damages for personal injuries, etc., the plaintiffs appeal from an or[388]*388der of the Supreme Court, Dutchess County (Beisner, J.), dated August 17, 2000, which granted the defendant’s motion to dismiss the action for failure to timely serve a complaint pursuant to CPLR 3012 (b) and denied their cross motion to compel the defendant to accept an untimely complaint.

Ordered that the order is affirmed, with costs.

The Supreme Court properly dismissed the action based upon the plaintiffs’ failure to serve a timely complaint (see, CPLR 3012 [b]). The plaintiffs did not demonstrate a meritorious cause of action and a reasonable excuse for their delay in serving the complaint (see, Chmielnik v Rosenberg, 269 AD2d 555; Gottfried v ABC Corp., 267 AD2d 350; Brown v Rosenfeld, 228 AD2d 460). Bracken, P. J., Friedmann, Florio, H. Miller and Townes, JJ., concur.

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

—In an action to recover damages for personal injuries, etc., the plaintiffs appeal from an or[388]*388der of the Supreme Court, Dutchess County (Beisner, J.), dated August 17, 2000, which granted the defendant’s motion to dismiss the action for failure to timely serve a complaint pursuant to CPLR 3012 (b) and denied their cross motion to compel the defendant to accept an untimely complaint.

Ordered that the order is affirmed, with costs.

The Supreme Court properly dismissed the action based upon the plaintiffs’ failure to serve a timely complaint (see, CPLR 3012 [b]). The plaintiffs did not demonstrate a meritorious cause of action and a reasonable excuse for their delay in serving the complaint (see, Chmielnik v Rosenberg, 269 AD2d 555; Gottfried v ABC Corp., 267 AD2d 350; Brown v Rosenfeld, 228 AD2d 460). Bracken, P. J., Friedmann, Florio, H. Miller and Townes, JJ., concur.

Cite This Page — Counsel Stack

Bluebook (online)

284 A.D.2d 387, 726 N.Y.S.2d 289, 2001 N.Y. App. Div. LEXIS 6045, Counsel Stack Legal Research, https://law.counselstack.com/opinion/savino-v-mobil-oil-corp-nyappdiv-2001.

Opinion

Related

Cite This Page — Counsel Stack