Furze v. Stapen
| Decision Date | 09 May 2018 |
| Docket Number | Index No. 503464/15,2016–11316 |
| Citation | 77 N.Y.S.3d 506,161 A.D.3d 827 |
| Parties | Mishelle FURZE, respondent, v. Richard STAPEN, etc., et al., defendants, Sandhya Nayak, etc., appellant. |
| Court | New York Supreme Court — Appellate Division |
161 A.D.3d 827
77 N.Y.S.3d 506
Mishelle FURZE, respondent,
v.
Richard STAPEN, etc., et al., defendants, Sandhya Nayak, etc., appellant.
2016–11316
Index No. 503464/15
Supreme Court, Appellate Division, Second Department, New York.
Argued–January 22, 2018
Decided May 9, 2018
Bartlett, McDonough & Monaghan, LLP, Mineola, N.Y. (Robert Devine of counsel), for appellant.
Ross Legan Rosenberg Zelen & Flaks, LLP, New York, N.Y. (Clifford F. Zelen of counsel), for respondent.
SHERI S. ROMAN, J.P., HECTOR D. LASALLE, FRANCESCA E. CONNOLLY, LINDA CHRISTOPHER, JJ.
DECISION & ORDER
In an action, inter alia, to recover damages for medical malpractice, the defendant Sandhya Nayak appeals from an order of the Supreme Court, Kings County (Laura L. Jacobson, J.), dated September 15, 2016. The order, insofar as appealed from, granted the plaintiff's cross motion pursuant to CPLR 306–b to extend the time to serve the summons and complaint upon the defendant Sandhya Nayak.
ORDERED that the order is affirmed insofar as appealed from, with costs.
On March 25, 2015, the plaintiff filed a summons and complaint against, among others, the defendants First Medcare, Inc. (hereinafter First Medcare), Jorge R. Orellana, and Sandhya Nayak, to recover damages for medical malpractice, negligent hiring and supervision, and lack of informed consent. An affidavit of service evidencing that Nayak was served pursuant to CPLR 308(2) at her usual place of abode was filed with the Kings County clerk on April 16, 2015. An additional copy of the summons and complaint was sent via certified mail to Nayak at the address of First Medcare, and the return receipt therefor was signed on or about June 22, 2015. When Nayak failed to appear or answer the complaint, the plaintiff informed First Medcare and Orellana, both of whom had answered, of Nayak's default and requested that they notify Nayak's insurance carrier of this action. Thereafter, Nayak served an answer dated August 20, 2015, and, by motion dated October 13, 2015, moved pursuant to CPLR 3211(a)(8) to dismiss the complaint...
To continue reading
Request your trial
-
Q.M. v. Lawton
...extension of time, and prejudice to defendant' " . Kowlessar v. Darkwah, 172 A.D.3d 837 (N.Y. App. Div. 2019) citing (Furze v. Stapen, 161 A.D.3d 827, 828, 77 N.Y.S.3d 506, quoting Leader v. Maroney, Ponzini & Spencer, 97 N.Y.2d at 105-106, 736 N.Y.S.2d 291, 761 N.E.2d 1018). The Court find......
-
Mighty v. Deshommes
...delay in service, the promptness of a plaintiff's request for the extension of time, and prejudice to defendant’ " ( Furze v. Stapen , 161 A.D.3d 827, 828, 77 N.Y.S.3d 506, quoting Leader v. Maroney, Ponzini & Spencer , 97 N.Y.2d 95, 105–106, 736 N.Y.S.2d 291, 761 N.E.2d 1018 ; see HSBC Ban......
-
Kowlessar v. Darkwah, 2018–00475
...of delay in service, the promptness of a plaintiff's request for the extension of time, and prejudice to defendant’ " ( Furze v. Stapen, 161 A.D.3d 827, 828, 77 N.Y.S.3d 506, quoting Leader v. Maroney, Ponzini & Spencer, 97 N.Y.2d at 105–106, 736 N.Y.S.2d 291, 761 N.E.2d 1018 ).Here, pursua......
-
Butters v. Payne
...delay in service, the promptness of a plaintiff's request for the extension of time, and prejudice to defendant’ " ( Furze v. Stapen, 161 A.D.3d 827, 828, 77 N.Y.S.3d 506, quoting Leader v. Maroney, Ponzini & Spencer, 97 N.Y.2d at 105–106, 736 N.Y.S.2d 291, 761 N.E.2d 1018 ). Here, the plai......