Tarzy v. Epstein

Appellate Division of the Supreme Court of New York

Tarzy v. Epstein

8 A.D.3d 656, 778 N.Y.S.2d 907, 2004 N.Y. App. Div. LEXIS 9185

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

DecidedJune 28, 2004

StatusPublished

Cited by5 cases

This text of 8 A.D.3d 656 (Tarzy v. Epstein) 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

Tarzy v. Epstein, 8 A.D.3d 656, 778 N.Y.S.2d 907, 2004 N.Y. App. Div. LEXIS 9185 (N.Y. Ct. App. 2004).

Pincite

Opinion

In an action to recover damages for personal injuries, the plaintiff appeals, as limited by his brief, from so much of an order of the Supreme Court, Kings County (Kramer J.), dated May 12, 2003, as granted the defendant’s motion pursuant to CPLR 3211 (e) to dismiss the complaint for lack of personal jurisdiction.

Ordered that the order is affirmed insofar as appealed from, with costs.

As the plaintiff conceded that he failed to effect service upon the defendant before the statute of limitations expired, the Supreme Court properly granted the defendant’s motion pursuant to CPLR 3211 (e) to dismiss the complaint for lack of personal jurisdiction. Moreover, the plaintiff did not demonstrate good cause for the failure to timely serve the defendant (see CPLR 306-b). Furthermore, under the circumstances of this case, the Supreme Court providently exercised its discretion in denying the plaintiffs request for an extension of time to effect service in the “interest of justice” under CPLR 306-b (see Leader v Maroney, Ponzini & Spencer, 97 NY2d 95 [2001]; Winter v Irizarry, 300 AD2d 472 [2002]; Rihal v Kirchhoff, 291 AD2d 548 [2002]). Santucci, J.P., S. Miller, Schmidt and Fisher, 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 plaintiff appeals, as limited by his brief, from so much of an order of the Supreme Court, Kings County (Kramer J.), dated May 12, 2003, as granted the defendant’s motion pursuant to CPLR 3211 (e) to dismiss the complaint for lack of personal jurisdiction.

Ordered that the order is affirmed insofar as appealed from, with costs.

As the plaintiff conceded that he failed to effect service upon the defendant before the statute of limitations expired, the Supreme Court properly granted the defendant’s motion pursuant to CPLR 3211 (e) to dismiss the complaint for lack of personal jurisdiction. Moreover, the plaintiff did not demonstrate good cause for the failure to timely serve the defendant (see CPLR 306-b). Furthermore, under the circumstances of this case, the Supreme Court providently exercised its discretion in denying the plaintiffs request for an extension of time to effect service in the “interest of justice” under CPLR 306-b (see Leader v Maroney, Ponzini & Spencer, 97 NY2d 95 [2001]; Winter v Irizarry, 300 AD2d 472 [2002]; Rihal v Kirchhoff, 291 AD2d 548 [2002]). Santucci, J.P., S. Miller, Schmidt and Fisher, JJ., concur.

Cite This Page — Counsel Stack

Bluebook (online)

8 A.D.3d 656, 778 N.Y.S.2d 907, 2004 N.Y. App. Div. LEXIS 9185, Counsel Stack Legal Research, https://law.counselstack.com/opinion/tarzy-v-epstein-nyappdiv-2004.

Opinion

Related

Cite This Page — Counsel Stack