A & J Concrete Corp. v. Arker
New York Court of Appeals
1Opinion of the Court
*872OPINION OF THE COURT
Memorandum.
The order of the Appellate Division should be affirmed, with costs, and the question certified answered in the negative.
We cannot say, as a matter of law; that Supréme Court abused its discretion by granting plaintiffs’ motion, made pursuant to CPLR 2004, for an extension of time within which to serve their complaint. It is within the court’s power to grant such an extension where it is established, as it was in this case, that the delay in service was not willful or lengthy and that it did not cause any prejudice, to the parties. (See Hickland v Hickland, 56…
2Cases cited2 opinions
- Barasch v. MicucciNew York Court of Appeals · 1980
- Hickland v. HicklandAppellate Division of the Supreme Court of the State of New York · 1977
3Cited by81 opinions
- Tewari v. TsoutsourasNew York Court of Appeals · 1989
- Eaton v. Equitable Life Assurance Society of United States, Inc.New York Court of Appeals · 1982
- Markoff v. South Nassau Community HospitalNew York Court of Appeals · 1984
- Juseinoski v. Board of EducationAppellate Division of the Supreme Court of the State of New York · 2005
- Chery v. AnthonyAppellate Division of the Supreme Court of the State of New York · 1989
76 more not listed; retrieve them via the Exa API.