Learn About the Law
Get help with your legal needs
FindLaw’s Learn About the Law features thousands of informational articles to help you understand your options. And if you’re ready to hire an attorney, find one in your area who can help.
Ricky Zegelstein, M.D., et al., Plaintiffs–Appellants–Respondents, v. Michael J. Faust, M.D., et al., Defendants–Respondents, Alan Raymond, M.D., Defendant–Respondent–Appellant, VCare, LLC, doing business as M.D. Manage, Inc., Defendant.
Swidler & Messi LLP, New York (Steven A. Swidler of counsel), for Alan Raymond, M.D., respondent-appellant.
Ann R. Starer, Scarsdale, for Michael J. Faust, M.D., respondent.
Garfunkel Wild, P.C., Great Neck (Kevin Donoghue of counsel), for Michael P. Krumholz M.D., respondent.
Meltzer, Lippe, Goldstein & Breitstone, LLP, Mineola (Loretta M. Gastwirth of counsel), for Jed Kaminetsky, M.D., respondent.
Law Offices of John V. Golaszewski, New York (John V. Golaszewski of counsel), for Haroon Chaudhry, respondent.
_
Order, Supreme Court, New York County (Anil C. Singh, J.), entered April 30, 2015, which granted defendants' motions to dismiss the complaint for lack of in personam jurisdiction, and, on the ground of lack of jurisdiction, denied plaintiffs' cross motion for leave to extend the time for service and to amend the complaint, unanimously modified, on the law, to delete the factual findings that defendant Raymond, individually, entered into an agreement with plaintiffs and that he would compensate the plaintiffs for services performed, and to deny defendants' motions, and the matter is remanded for consideration of plaintiffs' cross motion, and otherwise affirmed, without costs.
The court erroneously concluded that it lacked jurisdiction to entertain plaintiffs' cross motion for leave to extend the time for service and to amend the complaint as a result of plaintiffs' failure to serve the summons with notice within 120 days of commencement, in violation of CPLR 306–b. The court was required to exercise its discretion to decide whether an extension of time for service was warranted upon good cause shown or in the interest of justice (CPLR 306–b; Leader v. Maroney, Ponzini & Spencer, 97 N.Y.2d 95 [2001] ).
The court having granted the motions to dismiss on an improper basis and without considering plaintiffs' cross motion, we remand the matter for consideration of the cross motion (see Matter of Jordan v. City of New York, 38 AD3d 336, 339 [1st Dept 2007] ).
We decline to dismiss plaintiffs' claims with prejudice or to sanction plaintiffs for filing a frivolous action.
_
CLERK
Thank you for your feedback!
As the largest network of trusted legal brands, we help firms build authority across the platforms consumers and AI systems rely on most. Our network helps attorneys strengthen visibility, credibility, and preference where legal decisions begin.
Docket No: 2714
Decided: January 10, 2017
Court: Supreme Court, Appellate Division, First Department.
Search our directory by legal issue
Enter information in one or both fields (Required)
Harness the power of our directory with your own profile. Select the button below to sign up.
Learn more about FindLaw’s newsletters, including our terms of use and privacy policy.
Get help with your legal needs
FindLaw’s Learn About the Law features thousands of informational articles to help you understand your options. And if you’re ready to hire an attorney, find one in your area who can help.
Search our directory by legal issue
Enter information in one or both fields (Required)