Shostak v. City of New York

Appellate Division of the Supreme Court of New York

Shostak v. City of New York

138 A.D.3d 1099, 28 N.Y.S.3d 909

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

DecidedApril 27, 2016

StatusPublished

This text of 138 A.D.3d 1099 (Shostak v. City of New York) 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

Shostak v. City of New York, 138 A.D.3d 1099, 28 N.Y.S.3d 909 (N.Y. Ct. App. 2016).

Pincite

Opinion

In an action to recover damages for personal injuries, the defendants Rivka Feizovits and Alisa Feizovits appeal from so much of an order of the Supreme Court, Kings County (Partnow, J.), dated January 14, 2014, as, in effect, granted that branch of their motion which was pursuant to CPLR 3211 (a) (8) to dismiss the complaint insofar as asserted against them for lack of personal jurisdiction only to the extent of giving the plaintiff an additional 120 days to re-serve them with the summons and complaint.

Ordered that the order is affirmed insofar as appealed from, without costs or disbursements.

Under the circumstances of this case, the Supreme Court providently exercised its discretion in giving the plaintiff an additional 120 days to re-serve the defendants Rivka Feizovits and Alisa Feizovits with the summons and complaint. Dillon,

J.P., Austin, Maltese and Barros, 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, the defendants Rivka Feizovits and Alisa Feizovits appeal from so much of an order of the Supreme Court, Kings County (Partnow, J.), dated January 14, 2014, as, in effect, granted that branch of their motion which was pursuant to CPLR 3211 (a) (8) to dismiss the complaint insofar as asserted against them for lack of personal jurisdiction only to the extent of giving the plaintiff an additional 120 days to re-serve them with the summons and complaint.

Ordered that the order is affirmed insofar as appealed from, without costs or disbursements.

Under the circumstances of this case, the Supreme Court providently exercised its discretion in giving the plaintiff an additional 120 days to re-serve the defendants Rivka Feizovits and Alisa Feizovits with the summons and complaint. Dillon,

J.P., Austin, Maltese and Barros, JJ., concur.

Cite This Page — Counsel Stack

Bluebook (online)

138 A.D.3d 1099, 28 N.Y.S.3d 909, Counsel Stack Legal Research, https://law.counselstack.com/opinion/shostak-v-city-of-new-york-nyappdiv-2016.