Appellate Division of the Supreme Court of New York, 2011

Thompson v. City of New York

Appellate Division of the Supreme Court of New York · Decided November 22, 2011

89 A.D.3d 1011; 933 N.Y.2d 701

Cases that cite this one

30 later published cases cite this decision. The 25 that cite it most often are listed here.

Chandler v. Osadln, Inc. (Appellate Division of the Supreme Court of New York 2020)
Estate of Fernandez v. Wyckoff Hgts. Med. Ctr. (Appellate Division of the Supreme Court of New York 2018)
Mighty v. Deshommes (Appellate Division of the Supreme Court of New York 2019)
Furze v. Stapen (Appellate Division of the Supreme Court of New York 2018)
Destiny Rivera v. Rodriguez (Appellate Division of the Supreme Court of New York 2016)
Castillo v. JFK Medport, Inc. (Appellate Division of the Supreme Court of New York 2014)
Castillo v. JFK Medport, Inc. (Appellate Division of the Supreme Court of New York 2014)
Moundrakis v. Dellis (Appellate Division of the Supreme Court of New York 2012)
Moundrakis v. Dellis (Appellate Division of the Supreme Court of New York 2012)
Rosen v. S&M Kings Borough Corp. (Appellate Division of the Supreme Court of New York 2025)
Deutsche Bank Natl. Trust Co. v. Birnbaum (New York Supreme Court, Kings County 2024)
JPMorgan Chase Bank, N.A. v. Grinkorn (Appellate Division of the Supreme Court of New York 2019)
Wells Fargo Bank, NA v. Burshstein (Appellate Division of the Supreme Court of New York 2019)
Deutsche Bank Natl. Trust Co. v. Bandalos (Appellate Division of the Supreme Court of New York 2019)
HSBC Bank USA, N.A. v. Tarek Oqlah (Appellate Division of the Supreme Court of New York 2018)
Matthews v. Barrau (Appellate Division of the Supreme Court of New York 2017)
A.K. v. T.K. (Appellate Division of the Supreme Court of New York 2017)
Matthews v. Barrau (Appellate Division of the Supreme Court of New York 2017)
Jhang v. Nassau University Medical Center (Appellate Division of the Supreme Court of New York 2016)
Kuwano v. Linares (Appellate Division of the Supreme Court of New York 2015)
Moore v. Dunne (Appellate Division of the Supreme Court of New York 2015)
Matter of Baumann & Sons Buses, Inc. v. Ossining Union Free Sch. Dist. (Appellate Division of the Supreme Court of New York 2014)
Rudd v. City of New York (Appellate Division of the Supreme Court of New York 2014)
Rudd v. City of New York (Appellate Division of the Supreme Court of New York 2014)
Siragusa v. D'Esposito (Appellate Division of the Supreme Court of New York 2014)

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

*1012The Supreme Court providently exercised its discretion in denying that branch of the motion of the defendant Stephen Buonavita (hereinafter the defendant) which was pursuant to CPLR 3211 (a) (8) to dismiss the complaint insofar as asserted against him for lack of personal jurisdiction, and granting that branch of the plaintiffs cross motion which was pursuant to CPLR 306-b to extend the time to serve the summons and complaint upon the defendant in the interest of justice (see Leader v Maroney, Ponzini & Spencer, 97 NY2d 95, 105-106 [2001]; DiBuono v Abbey, LLC, 71 AD3d 720 [2010]; Rosenzweig v 600 N. St., LLC, 35 AD3d 705, 706 [2006]). When deciding whether to grant an extension of time to serve a summons and complaint in the interest of justice, “the court may consider diligence, or lack thereof, along with any other relevant factor in making its determination, including expiration of the Statute of Limitations, the [potentially] meritorious nature of the cause of action, the length of delay in service, the promptness of a plaintiffs request for the extension of time, and prejudice to defendant” (Leader v Maroney, Ponzini & Spencer, 97 NY2d at 105-106; see Bumpus v New York City Tr. Auth., 66 AD3d 26, 31-32 [2009]). Here, the record established that the plaintiff exercised diligence by timely filing and twice attempting to serve the defendant with the summons and complaint pursuant to CPLR 308 (4) within the 120-day period following the filing of the summons and complaint, although those attempts to serve the defendant were ultimately deemed defective (see DiBuono v Abbey, LLC, 71 AD3d at 720; Earle v Valente, 302 AD2d 353, 354 [2003]). Moreover, if the Supreme Court did not grant an extension of time to the plaintiff to serve the summons and complaint, the statute of limitations would have barred the plaintiffs claims against the defendant, which the plaintiff demonstrated were potentially meritorious (see DiBuono v Abbey, LLC, 71 AD3d at 720; Beauge v New York City Tr. Auth., 282 AD2d 416 [2001]; Scarabaggio v Olympia & York Estates Co., 278 AD2d 476 [2000], affd sub nom. Leader v Maroney, Ponzini & Spencer, 97 NY2d 95 [2001]). The plaintiff also demonstrated that he promptly cross-moved for an extension of time to serve the defendant, and there was .no demonstrable prejudice to the defendant (see DiBuono v Abbey, LLC, 71 AD3d at 720). Rivera, J.P., Eng, Belen and Austin, JJ., concur.

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