Senise v. Town of Orangetown

Appellate Division of the Supreme Court of New York

Senise v. Town of Orangetown

232 A.D.2d 544, 648 N.Y.S.2d 957, 1996 N.Y. App. Div. LEXIS 10446

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

DecidedOctober 21, 1996

StatusPublished

This text of 232 A.D.2d 544 (Senise v. Town of Orangetown) 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

Senise v. Town of Orangetown, 232 A.D.2d 544, 648 N.Y.S.2d 957, 1996 N.Y. App. Div. LEXIS 10446 (N.Y. Ct. App. 1996).

Pincite

Opinion

—In an action to recover damages for personal injuries and property damage, the appeal is from an order of the Supreme Court, Rockland County (Weiner, J.), entered June 28, 1995, which denied the defendant’s motion to dismiss the action for failure to timely serve a complaint, and granted the plaintiff’s cross motion, in effect, for an extension of time to serve the complaint.

Ordered that the order is affirmed, with costs.

The court did not improvidently exercise its discretion in granting the plaintiff an extension of time to serve the complaint, as her affidavit of merit sufficiently set forth a reasonable excuse for the delay in service and demonstrated the [545]*545meritorious nature of her action (CPLR 2004; see, Kel Mgt. Corp. v Roger & Wells, 64 NY2d 904; Ferrara v Guardino, 164 AD2d 932; Innerarity v County of Westchester, 144 AD2d 645; Niedermeier v Nassau County Dept. of Social Servs., 143 AD2d 78). Mangano, P. J., O’Brien, Pizzuto, Goldstein and Luciano, 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 and property damage, the appeal is from an order of the Supreme Court, Rockland County (Weiner, J.), entered June 28, 1995, which denied the defendant’s motion to dismiss the action for failure to timely serve a complaint, and granted the plaintiff’s cross motion, in effect, for an extension of time to serve the complaint.

Ordered that the order is affirmed, with costs.

The court did not improvidently exercise its discretion in granting the plaintiff an extension of time to serve the complaint, as her affidavit of merit sufficiently set forth a reasonable excuse for the delay in service and demonstrated the [545]*545meritorious nature of her action (CPLR 2004; see, Kel Mgt. Corp. v Roger & Wells, 64 NY2d 904; Ferrara v Guardino, 164 AD2d 932; Innerarity v County of Westchester, 144 AD2d 645; Niedermeier v Nassau County Dept. of Social Servs., 143 AD2d 78). Mangano, P. J., O’Brien, Pizzuto, Goldstein and Luciano, JJ., concur.

Cite This Page — Counsel Stack

Bluebook (online)

232 A.D.2d 544, 648 N.Y.S.2d 957, 1996 N.Y. App. Div. LEXIS 10446, Counsel Stack Legal Research, https://law.counselstack.com/opinion/senise-v-town-of-orangetown-nyappdiv-1996.

Opinion

Related

Cite This Page — Counsel Stack