Legal Opinion

Gilkes v. New York Wholesale Paper Corp.

Appellate Division of the Supreme Court of the State of New York

Decided November 15, 2011PublishedCited by 1 opinion

1Opinion of the Court

The IAS court providently exercised its discretion, in the interest of justice, by granting plaintiffs motion for an extension of time to serve the summons and complaint. The court properly considered pertinent factors such as plaintiffs showing of merit, the expiration of the statute of limitations, the prompt receipt of plaintiffs notice of claim by defendant’s insurer, and the failure of defendant’s employee to provide contact information for himself or defendant at the time of the accident (see *535Leader v Maroney, Ponzini & Spencer, 97 NY2d 95, 105-106 [2001]; Sutter v Reyes, 60 AD3d 448…

2Cases cited3 opinions

  1. Leader v. Maroney, Ponzini & SpencerNew York Court of Appeals · 2001
  2. Sutter v. ReyesAppellate Division of the Supreme Court of the State of New York · 2009
  3. Estey-Dorsa v. ChavezAppellate Division of the Supreme Court of the State of New York · 2006

3Cited by1 opinion

  1. Goldstein Group Holding, Inc. v. 310 East 4th Street Housing Development Fund Corp.Appellate Division of the Supreme Court of the State of New York · 2017

Showing a preview — retrieve the full document via the Exa API.

Powered by the Exa API