76 S. Cent. Assocs., LLC v. Dep't of Assessment

• Decision Date: 10 January 2018
• Docket Number: Index No. 403060/15,2016–00005
• Citation: 66 N.Y.S.3d 620 (Mem),157 A.D.3d 666
• Parties: In the Matter of 76 SOUTH CENTRAL ASSOCIATES, LLC, respondent, v. DEPARTMENT OF ASSESSMENT, et al., appellants.
• Court: New York Supreme Court — Appellate Division

157 A.D.3d 666

66 N.Y.S.3d 620 (Mem)

In the Matter of 76 SOUTH CENTRAL ASSOCIATES, LLC, respondent,

v.DEPARTMENT OF ASSESSMENT, et al., appellants.

2016–00005

Index No. 403060/15

Supreme Court, Appellate Division, Second Department, New York.

Argued—December 15, 2017

January 10, 2018

Jared Kasschau, Acting County Attorney, Mineola, N.Y. (Christi Marie Kunzig and Robert F. Van der Waag of counsel), for appellants.

The Gottlieb Law Firm, PLLC, Syosset, N.Y. (Jonathan D. Gottlieb of counsel), for respondent.

WILLIAM F. MASTRO, J.P., JEFFREY A. COHEN, HECTOR D. LASALLE, VALERIE BRATHWAITE NELSON, JJ.

DECISION & ORDER

In a tax certiorari proceeding pursuant to Real Property Tax Law article 7, the Department of Assessment, the Assessment Review Commission, and the County of Nassau appeal from an order of the Supreme Court, Nassau County (Marano, J.), dated November 30, 2015, which granted the petitioner's motion pursuant to CPLR 306–b to extend the time to complete service of process.

ORDERED that the order is affirmed, with costs.

The Supreme Court providently exercised its discretion in granting, in the interest of justice, the petitioner's motion pursuant to CPLR 306–b to extend the time to complete service of process on the appellants (see Leader v. Maroney, Ponzini & Spencer, 97 N.Y.2d 95, 105–106, 736 N.Y.S.2d 291, 761 N.E.2d 1018 ; Rosenzweig v. 600 N. St., LLC, 35 A.D.3d 705, 706, 826 N.Y.S.2d 680 ). The petitioner's time to effect service of process was properly extended since the verified petition demonstrated the merits of the proceeding, the petition was timely filed, the statute of limitations had expired by the time the petitioner moved to extend its time to complete service of process, and there was no demonstrable prejudice to the appellants which would militate against granting the extension of time to serve them (see CPLR 105[u] ; Leader v. Maroney, Ponzini & Spencer, 97 N.Y.2d at 105–106, 736 N.Y.S.2d 291, 761 N.E.2d 1018 ; Gabbar v. Flatlands Commons, LLC, 150 A.D.3d 1084, 1084–1085, 55 N.Y.S.3d 353 ; Abu–Aqlein v. El–Jamal, 44 A.D.3d 884, 885, 844 N.Y.S.2d 385 ; Beauge v. New York City Tr. Auth., 282 A.D.2d 416, 722 N.Y.S.2d 402 ; Busler v. Corbett, 259 A.D.2d 13, 696 N.Y.S.2d 615 ; cf. Bahadur v. New York State Dept. of Correctional Servs., 88 A.D.3d 629, 630, 930 N.Y.S.2d 631 ).

MASTRO, J.P., COHEN, LASALLE and BRATHWAITE NELSON, JJ., concur.