From Casetext: Smarter Legal Research

Thewet v. Clarke

Appellate Division of the Supreme Court of New York, First Department
Mar 27, 2007
38 A.D.3d 447 (N.Y. App. Div. 2007)

Opinion

No. 608N.

March 27, 2007.

Order, Supreme Court, Bronx County (Kenneth L. Thompson, Jr., J), entered on or about January 6, 2006, which, to the extent appealed from, denied defendant's cross motion to dismiss the complaint, unanimously affirmed, without costs.

Anita Nissan Yehuda, Roslyn Heights, for appellant.

Cascione, Purcigliotti Galluzzi, P.C., New York (Kelly L. Murtha of counsel), for respondents.

Before: Tom, J.P., Williams, Buckley, Gonzalez and Sweeny, JJ.


The motion court properly granted defendant's alternative request for extension of time to file a late answer. Although plaintiffs did not serve the summons and complaint within 30 days of entry of the order permitting substituted service via defendant's insurance carrier, plaintiffs did make service within 30 days of noticing entry of that order ( see Gallo v Ventimiglia, 283 AD2d 331). Plaintiffs were unaware that the order had been issued because their court-watching service failed to so inform them. As soon as they became aware of that order, some 10 months later, they promptly served it on defendant's insurer with notice of entry, followed shortly thereafter with service of the summons and complaint.


Summaries of

Thewet v. Clarke

Appellate Division of the Supreme Court of New York, First Department
Mar 27, 2007
38 A.D.3d 447 (N.Y. App. Div. 2007)
Case details for

Thewet v. Clarke

Case Details

Full title:ROBERTO THEWET et al., Respondents, v. ROLAND CLARKE, Appellant

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

Date published: Mar 27, 2007

Citations

38 A.D.3d 447 (N.Y. App. Div. 2007)
2007 N.Y. Slip Op. 2615
833 N.Y.S.2d 47

Citing Cases

Kaps-All Packaging Sys. v. Cohen

The appellant argues that this was error because he was not served with the December 6, 2007, order with…