From Casetext: Smarter Legal Research

J.M. Heinike Assoc. v. Ransom Enterprises

Appellate Division of the Supreme Court of New York, Fourth Department
Oct 6, 1989
154 A.D.2d 892 (N.Y. App. Div. 1989)

Opinion

October 6, 1989

Appeal from the Supreme Court, Erie County, Doyle, J.

Present — Dillon, P.J., Denman, Boomer, Green and Davis, JJ.


Order unanimously affirmed with costs. Memorandum: More than seven years passed between defendant's second demand for service of a complaint and this motion by defendant to dismiss the action pursuant to CPLR 3012 (b). Plaintiff failed to offer a reasonable excuse for such a long delay (see, Barasch v Micucci, 49 N.Y.2d 594; Varanelli v County of Suffolk, 130 A.D.2d 653; Berna v Monroe Community Coll., 91 A.D.2d 1199). Thus Supreme Court acted properly in denying plaintiff's motion for an extension of time to serve a complaint (CPLR 3012 [d]) and in dismissing the action.

We also find that Supreme Court did not abuse its discretion in denying plaintiff's application to punish defendant for contempt.


Summaries of

J.M. Heinike Assoc. v. Ransom Enterprises

Appellate Division of the Supreme Court of New York, Fourth Department
Oct 6, 1989
154 A.D.2d 892 (N.Y. App. Div. 1989)
Case details for

J.M. Heinike Assoc. v. Ransom Enterprises

Case Details

Full title:J.M. HEINIKE ASSOCIATES, INC., Appellant, v. RANSOM ENTERPRISES, INC.…

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

Date published: Oct 6, 1989

Citations

154 A.D.2d 892 (N.Y. App. Div. 1989)