From Casetext: Smarter Legal Research

Shea v. Bloomberg

Appellate Division of the Supreme Court of New York, Second Department
Aug 11, 2009
65 A.D.3d 579 (N.Y. App. Div. 2009)

Opinion

Nos. 2008-05357, 2008-10638.

August 11, 2009.

In an action to recover damages for personal injuries, the defendant Unlimited Visibility, Inc., appeals (1) from an order of the Supreme Court, Kings County (Rothenberg, J.), dated April 9, 2008, which denied that branch of its motion, in effect, pursuant to CPLR 3211 (a) (8) which was to dismiss the complaint insofar as asserted against it and granted the plaintiffs cross motion pursuant to CPLR 306-b to extend his time to serve a summons and complaint, and (2), as limited by its brief, from so much of an order of the same court (Lewis, J.), dated October 10, 2008, as denied its motion pursuant to CPLR 503 (a) and 511 to change the venue of the action from Kings County to Orange County.

James J. Toomey, New York, N.Y. (Eric Tosca of counsel), for appellant.

Ferro, Kuba, Mangano, Skylar, P.C., New York, N.Y. (Kenneth E. Mangano and George J. Parisi of counsel), for respondent.

Before: Santucci, J.P., Covello, Leventhal and Belen, JJ., concur.


Ordered that the order dated April 9, 2008 is reversed, on the facts and in the exercise of discretion, that branch of the appellant's motion, in effect, pursuant to CPLR 3211 (a) (8) which was to dismiss the complaint insofar as asserted against it is granted, and the plaintiffs cross motion pursuant to CPLR 306-b to extend his time to serve the summons and complaint is denied; and it is further,

Ordered that the order dated October 10, 2008 is modified, on the law, by deleting the provision thereof denying the appellant's motion pursuant to CPLR 503 (a) and 511 to change the venue of the action from Kings County to Orange County, and substituting therefor a provision denying the motion as academic; as so modified, the order is affirmed insofar as appealed from; and it is further,

Ordered that one bill of costs is awarded to the appellant. The Supreme Court improvidently exercised its discretion in denying that branch of the appellant's motion, in effect, pursuant to CPLR 3211 (a) (8) which was to dismiss the complaint insofar as asserted against it and in granting, in the interest of justice, the plaintiffs cross motion pursuant to CPLR 306-b to extend his time to serve the appellant ( see Leader v Maroney, Ponzini Spencer, 97 NY2d 95, 105). The appellant established that it was not served with a summons and complaint. The plaintiff failed to use due diligence in serving the summons and complaint and did not seek an extension of time to serve until after a motion to dismiss was brought ( see Garcia v Simonovsky, 62 AD3d 655, 656; Valentin v Zaltsman, 39 AD3d 852; see generally Bumpus v New York City Tr. Auth., 66 AD3d 26).

In light of our determination, the appellant's motion pursuant to CPLR 503 (a) and 511 to change the venue of the action from Kings County to Orange County must be denied as academic.


Summaries of

Shea v. Bloomberg

Appellate Division of the Supreme Court of New York, Second Department
Aug 11, 2009
65 A.D.3d 579 (N.Y. App. Div. 2009)
Case details for

Shea v. Bloomberg

Case Details

Full title:TIMOTHY SHEA, Respondent, v. BLOOMBERG, L.P., et al., Defendants, and…

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

Date published: Aug 11, 2009

Citations

65 A.D.3d 579 (N.Y. App. Div. 2009)
2009 N.Y. Slip Op. 6172
883 N.Y.S.2d 712

Citing Cases

Postawa v. David

The Court thus denies the motion by the plaintiff to grant an extension of time, pursuant to CPLR 306-b, to…

Khodeeva v. Chi Chung Yip

on in denying the plaintiffs motion pursuant to CPLR 306-b for an extension of time to serve the summons and…