Seon Uk Lee v. Corso

300 A.D.2d 385, 750 N.Y.S.2d 781
CourtAppellate Division of the Supreme Court of the State of New York
DecidedDecember 9, 2002
StatusPublished
Cited by8 cases

This text of 300 A.D.2d 385 (Seon Uk Lee v. Corso) 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
Seon Uk Lee v. Corso, 300 A.D.2d 385, 750 N.Y.S.2d 781 (N.Y. Ct. App. 2002).

Opinion

—In an action, inter alia, to re[386]*386cover damages for personal injuries, the plaintiffs appeal, as limited by their brief, from so much of an order of the Supreme Court, Queens County (Colar, J.), dated January 3, 2002, as denied their cross motion pursuant to CPLR 306-b for an extension of time in which to serve the summons and complaint.

Ordered that the order is reversed insofar as appealed from, on the law and as a matter of discretion, with costs, and the cross motion is granted.

After conducting a hearing to determine the validity of service of process, the Supreme Court dismissed the complaint because the plaintiffs failed to effect proper service, and denied the plaintiffs’ cross motion for an extension of time to serve. However, “CPLR 306-b, which permits the Supreme Court to extend a plaintiff’s time to serve a summons and complaint for ‘good cause shown or in the interest of justice,’ is applicable where service, timely made within the 120-day period, is subsequently found to have been defective” (Citron v Schlossberg, 282 AD2d 642; see Watler v Riccuiti, 282 AD2d 741; Murphy v Hoppenstein, 279 AD2d 410; Gurevitch v Goodman, 269 AD2d 355). Upon consideration of the relevant factors in the interest of justice, the plaintiffs should have been given an extension of time to serve the summons and complaint on the defendants, and thus, the cross motion should have been granted (see Leader v Maroney, Ponzini & Spencer, 97 NY2d 95). Santucci, J.P., Krausman, Crane and Mastro, JJ., concur.

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

Related

Mendez v. New York Methodist Hospital
87 A.D.3d 1114 (Appellate Division of the Supreme Court of New York, 2011)
Tikvah Enterprises, LLC v. Neuman
80 A.D.3d 748 (Appellate Division of the Supreme Court of New York, 2011)
Mobilevision Medical Imaging Services, LLC v. Sinai Diagnostic & Interventional Radiology
66 A.D.2d 685 (Appellate Division of the Supreme Court of New York, 2009)
Cooper v. New York City Board of Education
55 A.D.3d 526 (Appellate Division of the Supreme Court of New York, 2008)
Robles v. Mirzakhmedov
34 A.D.3d 554 (Appellate Division of the Supreme Court of New York, 2006)
Chiaro v. D'Angelo
7 A.D.3d 746 (Appellate Division of the Supreme Court of New York, 2004)
Louis Aris v. McGregor
2004 NY Slip Op 50139(U) (New York Supreme Court, Nassau County, 2004)
Simonovskaya v. Olivo
304 A.D.2d 553 (Appellate Division of the Supreme Court of New York, 2003)

Cite This Page — Counsel Stack

Bluebook (online)
300 A.D.2d 385, 750 N.Y.S.2d 781, Counsel Stack Legal Research, https://law.counselstack.com/opinion/seon-uk-lee-v-corso-nyappdiv-2002.