Kurtz v. American Export Industries, Inc.

3 Citing cases

  1. Slate v. Schiavone Constr. Co.

    10 A.D.3d 1 (N.Y. App. Div. 2004)   Cited 19 times
    In Slate v. Schiavone Const. Co, 10 AD3d 1, lv. granted, 11 AD3d 1053 (1st Dept. 2004), the Court held that the expiration of the statute of limitations does not, in and if itself, constitute prejudice to defendant.

    The court noted that plaintiff would be severely prejudiced by the loss of the opportunity to have his Labor Law claims adjudicated "simply because his attorney made a patently unwise assumption concerning defendant's address and then failed to pursue even a cursory investigation into the address's validity when indications that the address might be incorrect arose." Since defendant fully addressed the issue of whether plaintiff should be afforded relief pursuant to CPLR 306-b in its moving papers, the absence of a formal motion by plaintiff was not an impediment to the court's award of such relief upon his informal request ( see e.g. Kurtz v. American Export Indus., 49 AD2d 557, affd 39 NY2d 738). The relief granted was proper where plaintiff's complaint and affidavit indicated a meritorious Labor Law claim, plaintiff's newly retained counsel made a good faith, though flawed, attempt to serve defendant well within the statutorily prescribed 120-day period, and there was no showing that the grant of the requested extension would prejudice defendant ( see Leader v. Maroney, Ponzini Spencer, 97 NY2d 95).

  2. Washington v. Harris

    2012 N.Y. Slip Op. 32661 (N.Y. Sup. Ct. 2012)

    In addition, plaintiffs addressed the defendant's prayer for relief and are not prejudiced by the lack of a formal cross-motion. Thus, the defendant's opposition is deemed a cross-motion (see Fugazy v. Fugazy, 44 AD3d 613 [2007]; cf Kurtz v American Export Indus., 49 AD2d 557 [1975], aff'd 39 NY2d 738 [1976]). The defendant's cross-motion to vacate her default pursuant to CPLR 5015(a)(1) and for leave to serve an answer is granted.

  3. Canfi USA, Inc. v. Dusica Dusica, Inc.

    2008 N.Y. Slip Op. 51670 (N.Y. Sup. Ct. 2008)

    The statute of limitations has not yet expired (CPLR § 213), and Defendant would not be prejudiced. Although Plaintiff did not make a formal application for a time extension to properly serve Defendant, the court can exercise its discretion under CPLR § 306-b, the informal request in Plaintiff's opposition papers suffice (Slate v.Schiavone Const. Co. , 10 AD3d 1, 4 [1st Dept 2004], revs'd on other grounds 4 NY3d 816; citing Kurtz v. American Export Industries, Inc., 49 AD2d 557 [1 Dept 1975]). Accordingly, it is