Wainwright v. Nassau Recycle Corp.

Appellate Division of the Supreme Court of New York

Wainwright v. Nassau Recycle Corp.

59 A.D.2d 891, 399 N.Y.S.2d 46, 1977 N.Y. App. Div. LEXIS 14079

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

DecidedNovember 7, 1977

StatusPublished

Cited by1 cases

This text of 59 A.D.2d 891 (Wainwright v. Nassau Recycle Corp.) 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

Wainwright v. Nassau Recycle Corp., 59 A.D.2d 891, 399 N.Y.S.2d 46, 1977 N.Y. App. Div. LEXIS 14079 (N.Y. Ct. App. 1977).

Pincite

Opinion

In an action to recover damages for personal injuries, defendant Nassau Recycle Corp. appeals from an order of the Supreme Court, Richmond County, dated May 27, 1977, which denied its motion to dismiss the action for failure to timely serve a complaint. Order reversed, with $50 costs and disbursements, and motion granted. Plaintiff-respondent has failed to demonstrate a valid justification for the protracted delay in serving his complaint. There is no imminent danger that the Statute of Limitations will expire; nor does the service of another and redundant notice of appearance by substituted counsel excuse the delay. The fact that the codefendant accepted belated service is not determinative of appellant’s rejection of the proffered complaint served by plaintiff immediately prior to the return date of appellant’s motion to dismiss. Cohalan, J. P., Titone, Hawkins and Suozzi, 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, defendant Nassau Recycle Corp. appeals from an order of the Supreme Court, Richmond County, dated May 27, 1977, which denied its motion to dismiss the action for failure to timely serve a complaint. Order reversed, with $50 costs and disbursements, and motion granted. Plaintiff-respondent has failed to demonstrate a valid justification for the protracted delay in serving his complaint. There is no imminent danger that the Statute of Limitations will expire; nor does the service of another and redundant notice of appearance by substituted counsel excuse the delay. The fact that the codefendant accepted belated service is not determinative of appellant’s rejection of the proffered complaint served by plaintiff immediately prior to the return date of appellant’s motion to dismiss. Cohalan, J. P., Titone, Hawkins and Suozzi, JJ., concur.

Cite This Page — Counsel Stack

Bluebook (online)

59 A.D.2d 891, 399 N.Y.S.2d 46, 1977 N.Y. App. Div. LEXIS 14079, Counsel Stack Legal Research, https://law.counselstack.com/opinion/wainwright-v-nassau-recycle-corp-nyappdiv-1977.

Opinion

Related

Cite This Page — Counsel Stack