Appellate Division of the Supreme Court of New York, 2011

Khodeeva v. Chi Chung Yip

Appellate Division of the Supreme Court of New York · Decided May 17, 2011

84 A.D.3d 1030; 922 N.Y.S.2d 807

Cases that cite this one

15 later published cases cite this decision.

Rodriguez v. Consolidated Edison Co. of N.Y., Inc. (Appellate Division of the Supreme Court of New York 2018)
Krasa v. Dial 7 Car & Limousine Service, Inc. (Appellate Division of the Supreme Court of New York 2017)
Navarrete v. Metro PCS (Appellate Division of the Supreme Court of New York 2016)
Board of Mgrs. of Foundry at Wash. Park Condominium v. Foundry Dev. Co., Inc. (Appellate Division of the Supreme Court of New York 2016)
Amigo Travel Reynoso Agency Corp. v. Monohan (Appellate Division of the Supreme Court of New York 2016)
Amigo Travel Reynoso Agency Corp. v. Monohan (Appellate Division of the Supreme Court of New York 2016)
Qing Dong v. Chen Mao Kao (Appellate Division of the Supreme Court of New York 2014)
Qing Dong v. Chen Mao Kao (Appellate Division of the Supreme Court of New York 2014)
Aurora Loan Services, LLC v. Gaines (Appellate Division of the Supreme Court of New York 2013)
Aurora Loan Services, LLC v. Gaines (Appellate Division of the Supreme Court of New York 2013)
Agudo v. Zhinin (Appellate Division of the Supreme Court of New York 2012)
PDK Labs, Inc. v. G.M.G. Trans West Corp. (Appellate Division of the Supreme Court of New York 2012)
PDK Labs, Inc. v. G.M.G. Trans West Corp. (Appellate Division of the Supreme Court of New York 2012)
Bahadur v. New York State Department of Correctional Services (Appellate Division of the Supreme Court of New York 2011)
Lee v. Colley Group McMontebello, LLC (Appellate Division of the Supreme Court of New York 2011)

This list shows which later cases cite this one. It does not say how they treated it, and no review of that has been done. Not a substitute for Shepard’s or KeyCite — verify before relying.

Opinion of the Court

In an action to recover damages for personal injuries, etc., the plaintiffs appeal from an order of the Supreme Court, Richmond County (Fusco, J.), dated April 21, 2010, which, upon a decision (D’Oca, R.) dated March 30, 2010, granted the defendants’ motion to dismiss the complaint for lack of personal jurisdiction, and denied the plaintiffs’ motion pursuant to CPLR 306-b for an extension of time to serve the summons and complaint.

Ordered that the order is affirmed, with costs.

The Supreme Court properly granted the defendants’ motion to dismiss the complaint for lack of personal jurisdiction since, at a hearing to determine the validity of service of process, the plaintiffs failed to establish by a preponderance of evidence that service was proper (see Deutsche Bank Natl. Trust Co. v Pestano, 71 AD3d 1074, 1075 [2010]; Forrester v Luisa, 52 AD3d 324 [2008]; see also De Zego v Donald F. Bruhn, M. D., P. C., 67 NY2d 875 [1986]).

The Supreme Court also providently exercised its discretion in denying the plaintiff s motion pursuant to CPLR 306-b for an extension of time to serve the summons and complaint (see Leader v Maroney, Ponzini & Spencer, 97 NY2d 95 [2001]). The plaintiffs failed to establish that good cause existed to extend *1031the time for service (see Colon v Bailey, 26 AD3d 454, 455 [2006]; Wilkins v Burgess, 25 AD3d 794 [2006]; see also Ortiz v Malik, 35 AD3d 560 [2006]; Alexander v Alexander, 32 AD3d 524 [2006]). The plaintiffs also failed to establish that an extension of time was warranted in the interest of justice since they “exhibited a lack of diligence in commencing the action . . . until the statute of limitations had nearly expired (see Ortiz v Malik, 35 AD3d 560 [2006]) . . . did not seek an extension of time to serve the defendants] until after a motion to dismiss had been brought by the defendants,] despite having been served with the defendants’] answer, which raised the lack of personal jurisdiction as an affirmative defense (see Varon v Maimonides Med. Ctr., 67 AD3d 779, 779-780 [2009]; Shea v Bloomberg, L.P., 65 AD3d 579, 580 [2009]; Garcia v Simonovsky, 62 AD3d 655, 656 [2009]), and . . . failed to establish [a] potentially meritorious cause of action (see Garcia v Simonovsky, 62 AD3d 655, 656 [2009]; Ortiz v Malik, 35 AD3d 560 [2006]; Wilkins v Burgess, 25 AD3d 794 [2006]; Kazimierski v New York Univ., 18 AD3d 820 [2005])” (Calloway v Wells, 79 AD3d 786, 787 [2010]).

The plaintiffs’ remaining contentions are without merit. Dillon, J.E, Balkin, Leventhal and Hall, JJ., concur.

Case-law data current through December 31, 2025. Source: CourtListener bulk data.