Tinson v. 512 West 29th Street

Appellate Division of the Supreme Court of New York

Tinson v. 512 West 29th Street

60 A.D.3d 575, 874 N.Y.S.2d 807

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

DecidedMarch 26, 2009

StatusPublished

This text of 60 A.D.3d 575 (Tinson v. 512 West 29th Street) 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

Tinson v. 512 West 29th Street, 60 A.D.3d 575, 874 N.Y.S.2d 807 (N.Y. Ct. App. 2009).

Pincite

Opinion

[576]*576Order, Supreme Court, New York County (Milton A. Tingling, J.), entered April 1, 2008, which, to the extent appealed from, denied defendant’s motion to dismiss the action, unanimously affirmed, with costs.

The summons and complaint were filed on December 29, 2006, giving plaintiff until April 28, 2007, to effect service (CPLR 306-b). Proper service was made on the Secretary of State on March 30, after working out some procedural defects in the papers. On April 4, plaintiffs counsel consented to a 30-day extension for defendant to answer the complaint. Instead, defendant moved on May 2 to dismiss for failure to serve within the statute of limitations, which had expired on December 31, 2006.

Plaintiff demonstrated diligent efforts to serve defendant in a timely fashion. But for the courtesy extension to opposing counsel, he would have effectuated service within 120 days of the timely filing of the complaint. The court’s ruling was a proper exercise of discretion in the interest of justice (see de Vries v Metropolitan Tr. Auth., 11 AD3d 312 [2004]). Concur— Gonzalez, P.J., Andrias, Buckley and Acosta, JJ.

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

[576]*576Order, Supreme Court, New York County (Milton A. Tingling, J.), entered April 1, 2008, which, to the extent appealed from, denied defendant’s motion to dismiss the action, unanimously affirmed, with costs.

The summons and complaint were filed on December 29, 2006, giving plaintiff until April 28, 2007, to effect service (CPLR 306-b). Proper service was made on the Secretary of State on March 30, after working out some procedural defects in the papers. On April 4, plaintiffs counsel consented to a 30-day extension for defendant to answer the complaint. Instead, defendant moved on May 2 to dismiss for failure to serve within the statute of limitations, which had expired on December 31, 2006.

Plaintiff demonstrated diligent efforts to serve defendant in a timely fashion. But for the courtesy extension to opposing counsel, he would have effectuated service within 120 days of the timely filing of the complaint. The court’s ruling was a proper exercise of discretion in the interest of justice (see de Vries v Metropolitan Tr. Auth., 11 AD3d 312 [2004]). Concur— Gonzalez, P.J., Andrias, Buckley and Acosta, JJ.

Cite This Page — Counsel Stack

Bluebook (online)

60 A.D.3d 575, 874 N.Y.S.2d 807, Counsel Stack Legal Research, https://law.counselstack.com/opinion/tinson-v-512-west-29th-street-nyappdiv-2009.

Opinion

Related

Cite This Page — Counsel Stack