From Casetext: Smarter Legal Research

Stuart v. Gimpel

Appellate Division of the Supreme Court of New York, Second Department
Dec 15, 2003
2 A.D.3d 625 (N.Y. App. Div. 2003)

Opinion

2002-11332.

Decided December 15, 2003.

In an action to recover damages for personal injuries, the defendant Valery Gimpel appeals from an order of the Supreme Court, Kings County (Ruchelsman, J.), dated August 20, 2002, which denied his motion pursuant to CPLR 3211(a)(8) to dismiss the complaint insofar as asserted against him for lack of personal jurisdiction and extended the plaintiff's time to effectuate service by 120 days, pursuant to CPLR 306-b.

Martin, Fallon Mullé, Huntington, N.Y. (Larry M. Shaw and Peter D. Garone of counsel), for appellant.

Mallilo Grossman, Flushing, N.Y. (Francesco Pomara, Jr., of counsel), for respondent.

Before: ROBERT W. SCHMIDT, BARRY A. COZIER, JJ.


DECISION ORDER

ORDERED that the order is reversed, on the law, with costs, the motion is granted, the complaint insofar as asserted against the appellant is dismissed, and the action against the remaining defendants is severed.

The Supreme Court should have granted the motion of the defendant Valery Gimpel pursuant to CPLR 3211(a)(8) to dismiss the complaint insofar as asserted against him. The plaintiff failed to diligently attempt to effect service on Gimpel, never moved for an extension of time to effect service, and failed to demonstrate the existence of a meritorious cause of action ( see Winter v. Irizarry, 300 A.D.2d 472; Rihal v. Kirchhoff, 291 A.D.2d 548) . Accordingly, an extension of time to serve Gimpel was not warranted, either for good cause shown, or in the interest of justice ( see CPLR 306-b; Leader v. Maroney, Ponzini Spencer, 97 N.Y.2d 95).

SANTUCCI, J.P., GOLDSTEIN, SCHMIDT and COZIER, JJ., concur.


Summaries of

Stuart v. Gimpel

Appellate Division of the Supreme Court of New York, Second Department
Dec 15, 2003
2 A.D.3d 625 (N.Y. App. Div. 2003)
Case details for

Stuart v. Gimpel

Case Details

Full title:DANA STUART, respondent, v. VALERY GIMPEL, appellant, ET AL., defendants

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

Date published: Dec 15, 2003

Citations

2 A.D.3d 625 (N.Y. App. Div. 2003)
768 N.Y.S.2d 340

Citing Cases

Sommers v. Cohen

The plaintiff's argument with respect to an extension of time to serve the defendants is without merit ( see…

Quinones v. Neighborhood Youth Family Serv. Inc.

A plaintiff seeking an extension of time to effect service of process for good cause shown should demonstrate…