Stryker v. Stelmak
Appellate Division of the Supreme Court of the State of New York
1Opinion of the Court
*455We reject defendant Stelmak’s argument that extension of the 120-day period to effect proper service of an already filed summons and complaint (CPLR 306-b) may be granted only if no service, as opposed to improper service, was made within that period (Murphy v Hoppenstein, 279 AD2d 410 [2001]; see also Earle v Valente, 302 AD2d 353, 354 [2003]). “Such ‘extensions of time should be liberally granted whenever plaintiffs have been reasonably diligent in attempting service,’ regardless of the expiration of the Statute of Limitations after filing and before service” (Murphy, 279 AD2d at 410-411…
2Cases cited6 opinions
- Leader v. Maroney, Ponzini & SpencerNew York Court of Appeals · 2001
- Earle v. ValenteAppellate Division of the Supreme Court of the State of New York · 2003
- Sean M. v. City of New YorkAppellate Division of the Supreme Court of the State of New York · 2005
- Jordan v. Bates Advertising Holdings, Inc.Appellate Division of the Supreme Court of the State of New York · 2002
- Murphy v. HoppensteinAppellate Division of the Supreme Court of the State of New York · 2001
1 more not listed; retrieve them via the Exa API.
3Cited by6 opinions
- Moran v. County of SuffolkAppellate Division of the Supreme Court of the State of New York · 2020
- Hernandez v. Abdul-SalaamAppellate Division of the Supreme Court of the State of New York · 2012
- Matter of Delaware Operations Assoc. LLC v. New York State Dept. of HealthAppellate Division of the Supreme Court of the State of New York · 2020
- Great Northern Insurance v. Estelle Irrigation Corp.Appellate Division of the Supreme Court of the State of New York · 2015
- On the Level Enterprises, Inc. v. 49 East Houston LLCAppellate Division of the Supreme Court of the State of New York · 2012
1 more not listed; retrieve them via the Exa API.