Shelkowitz v. Rainess

Appellate Division of the Supreme Court of New York

Shelkowitz v. Rainess

57 A.D.3d 337, 869 N.Y.2d 87

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

DecidedDecember 18, 2008

StatusPublished

Cited by4 cases

This text of 57 A.D.3d 337 (Shelkowitz v. Rainess) 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

Shelkowitz v. Rainess, 57 A.D.3d 337, 869 N.Y.2d 87 (N.Y. Ct. App. 2008).

Pincite

Opinion

Dismissal of the complaint was proper where plaintiff did not effect service of the summons and complaint upon defendant within 120 days after the filing of the action (CFLR 306-b). Nor is an extension of time for service warranted in the “interest of justice” (id.). The request for an extension of time was not made until opposition to defendant’s cross motion to dismiss, which was approximately 20 months after the filing of the action (see Slate v Schiavone Constr. Co., 4 NY3d 816 [2005]; Pecker Iron Works, Inc. v Namasco Corp., 37 AD3d 367 [2007]). Furthermore, contrary to plaintiffs contention, CFLR 207 is not applicable as there is no evidence that defendant was either absent from the state within the meaning of the statute, or that he was listed under a false name. Concur — Lippman, EJ., Tom, Buckley, Moskowitz and Renwick, JJ.

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

Dismissal of the complaint was proper where plaintiff did not effect service of the summons and complaint upon defendant within 120 days after the filing of the action (CFLR 306-b). Nor is an extension of time for service warranted in the “interest of justice” (id.). The request for an extension of time was not made until opposition to defendant’s cross motion to dismiss, which was approximately 20 months after the filing of the action (see Slate v Schiavone Constr. Co., 4 NY3d 816 [2005]; Pecker Iron Works, Inc. v Namasco Corp., 37 AD3d 367 [2007]). Furthermore, contrary to plaintiffs contention, CFLR 207 is not applicable as there is no evidence that defendant was either absent from the state within the meaning of the statute, or that he was listed under a false name. Concur — Lippman, EJ., Tom, Buckley, Moskowitz and Renwick, JJ.

Cite This Page — Counsel Stack

Bluebook (online)

57 A.D.3d 337, 869 N.Y.2d 87, Counsel Stack Legal Research, https://law.counselstack.com/opinion/shelkowitz-v-rainess-nyappdiv-2008.

Opinion

Related

Cite This Page — Counsel Stack