From Casetext: Smarter Legal Research

Foote v. Ruiz

Appellate Division of the Supreme Court of New York, Second Department
Dec 17, 2001
289 A.D.2d 374 (N.Y. App. Div. 2001)

Opinion

2001-04589

Submitted October 16, 2001.

December 17, 2001.

In an action to recover damages for personal injuries, etc., the defendant appeals from an order of the Supreme Court, Orange County (Slobod, J.), dated April 23, 2001, which granted the plaintiffs' motion pursuant to CPLR 306-b to extend their time to serve the summons and complaint.

McCarl Harris, Montgomery, N.Y. (James P. Harris of counsel), for appellant.

Dupée, Dupée Monroe, P.C., Goshen, N Y (John C. Dupée, Jr., of counsel), for respondents.

Before: CORNELIUS J. O'BRIEN, J.P., LEO F. McGINITY, HOWARD MILLER, THOMAS A. ADAMS, JJ.


ORDERED that the order is affirmed, with costs.

The Supreme Court providently exercised its discretion in granting the plaintiffs an extension of time to serve the summons and complaint on the defendant in the interest of justice pursuant to CPLR 306-b (see, Hafkin v. North Shore Univ. Hosp., N.Y.2d [Nov. 20, 2001]; Scarabaggio v. Olympia York Estates Co., N.Y.2d [Nov. 20, 2001]; Leader v. Maroney, Ponzini Spencer, N.Y.2d [Nov. 20, 2001]). Although the summons and complaint were filed before the expiration of the Statute of Limitations, the plaintiffs' claims would be extinguished without an extension as the Statute of Limitations has since expired (see, Beauge v. New York City Tr. Auth., 282 A.D.2d 416). In addition, the plaintiffs timely moved for an extension within the 120-day period set forth in CPLR 306-b, the defendant received actual notice of the action within that statutory period, and he failed to demonstrate any prejudice attributable to the delay (see, Beauge v. New York City Tr. Auth., supra; Scarabaggio v. Olympia York Estates Co., supra; Leader v. Maroney, Ponzini Spencer, supra).

O'BRIEN, J.P., McGINITY, H. MILLER and ADAMS, JJ., concur.


Summaries of

Foote v. Ruiz

Appellate Division of the Supreme Court of New York, Second Department
Dec 17, 2001
289 A.D.2d 374 (N.Y. App. Div. 2001)
Case details for

Foote v. Ruiz

Case Details

Full title:JILL FOOTE, et al., respondents, v. BRENT RUIZ, appellant

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

Date published: Dec 17, 2001

Citations

289 A.D.2d 374 (N.Y. App. Div. 2001)
734 N.Y.S.2d 887

Citing Cases

State Farm Mut. Auto. Ins. Co. v. Cofield

The second set includes: expiration of the statute of limitations; actual notice to defendant that litigation…

Simonovskaya v. Olivo

PLR 308(4) must be strictly observed, given the reduced likelihood that a summons served pursuant to that…