Chandler v. Osadln, Inc.

• Decision Date: 25 March 2020
• Docket Number: 2018–15178,Index No. 501096/18
• Citation: 122 N.Y.S.3d 337,181 A.D.3d 897
• Parties: Mark CHANDLER, Respondent, v. OSADLN, INC., et al., Appellants.
• Court: New York Supreme Court — Appellate Division

181 A.D.3d 897
122 N.Y.S.3d 337

Mark CHANDLER, Respondent,
v.
OSADLN, INC., et al., Appellants.

2018–15178
Index No. 501096/18

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

Submitted—January 13, 2020
March 25, 2020

122 N.Y.S.3d 338

Nancy L. Isserlis (Saretsky Katz & Dranoff, LLP, New York, N.Y. [Ashley S. Rajakaruna], of counsel), for appellants.

ALAN D. SCHEINKMAN, P.J., SHERI S. ROMAN, SYLVIA O. HINDS–RADIX, HECTOR D. LASALLE, JJ.

DECISION & ORDER

181 A.D.3d 897

In an action to recover damages for personal injuries, the defendants appeal from an order of the Supreme Court, Kings County (Dawn Jimenez–Salta, J.), dated December 12, 2018. The order denied the defendants' motion pursuant to CPLR 214(5), 306–b, and 308 to dismiss the complaint insofar as asserted against the defendant Joseph Bent, and granted the plaintiff's cross motion pursuant to CPLR 306–b to extend the time to serve the summons and complaint upon the defendant Joseph Bent.

ORDERED that the order is affirmed, without costs or disbursements.

The plaintiff commenced this action against the defendants Osadln, Inc., and Joseph Bent to recover damages for personal injuries by filing of a summons and complaint on January 18, 2018, just days prior to the expiration of the statute of limitations. Bent was purportedly served on February 20, 2018, pursuant to CPLR 308(2) by delivery to a person of suitable age and discretion, and on February 22, 2018, by mail at a location in Brooklyn. The defendants moved to dismiss the complaint insofar as asserted against Bent. The defendants contended that Bent was not properly served, as he never resided at the address where service was attempted, and that the plaintiff's failure to serve Bent within 120 days after commencement of the action warranted dismissal of the action. The plaintiff, not disputing Bent's contention that the purported service upon him was ineffective, cross-moved pursuant to CPLR 306–b to extend the time to serve the summons and complaint upon

181 A.D.3d 898

Bent. The Supreme Court denied the defendants' motion and granted the plaintiff's cross motion. The defendants appeal, contending that the court should not have granted an extension to make service and should have directed dismissal of the complaint. We affirm.

Service of process must generally be...