From Casetext: Smarter Legal Research

Tinson v. 512 West 29th St.

Appellate Division of the Supreme Court of New York, First Department
Mar 26, 2009
60 A.D.3d 575 (N.Y. App. Div. 2009)

Opinion

No. 161.

March 26, 2009.

Order, 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.

Havkins Rosenfeld Ritzert Varriale, LLP, New York (Carmen A. Nicolaou of counsel), for appellant.

LeBow Associates, PLLC, New York (James B. LeBow of counsel), for respondent.

Before: Gonzalez, P.J., Andrias, Buckley and Acosta, JJ.


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, plaintiff's 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).


Summaries of

Tinson v. 512 West 29th St.

Appellate Division of the Supreme Court of New York, First Department
Mar 26, 2009
60 A.D.3d 575 (N.Y. App. Div. 2009)
Case details for

Tinson v. 512 West 29th St.

Case Details

Full title:ROHAN TINSON, Respondent, v. 512 WEST 29TH STREET, LLC, Also Known as…

Court:Appellate Division of the Supreme Court of New York, First Department

Date published: Mar 26, 2009

Citations

60 A.D.3d 575 (N.Y. App. Div. 2009)
2009 N.Y. Slip Op. 2307
874 N.Y.S.2d 807

Citing Cases

Bevilacqua v. Bloomberg, L.P.

The 3rdparty actions It is well established law that if a plaintiff timely files the summons and complaint,…