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.
Daniel KAZIMIERSKI, appellant, v. NEW YORK UNIVERSITY, et al., respondents.
In an action to recover damages for employment discrimination, the plaintiff appeals from an order of the Supreme Court, Westchester County (Jamieson, J.), entered July 14, 2004, which granted the defendants' motion to dismiss the complaint pursuant to CPLR 3211(a)(8) and denied his cross motion pursuant to CPLR 306-b for an extension of time to serve the summons and complaint.
ORDERED that the order is affirmed, with costs.
The Supreme Court providently exercised its discretion in granting the defendants' motion to dismiss the complaint pursuant to CPLR 3211(a)(8) for lack of personal jurisdiction and in denying the plaintiff's cross motion pursuant to CPLR 306-b for an extension of time to serve the summons and complaint (see Leader v. Maroney, Ponzini & Spencer, 97 N.Y.2d 95, 736 N.Y.S.2d 291, 761 N.E.2d 1018). The plaintiff failed to establish that he exercised reasonable diligence in attempting to effect proper service upon the defendants. The initial attempts at service were palpably improper and, even though the defendants moved to dismiss on that ground before the expiration of the 120-day statutory period, the plaintiff did not attempt to re-serve the defendants until the statutory period had expired (cf. Liaros v. City of New York, 14 A.D.3d 662, 789 N.Y.S.2d 290; Leadbeater v. Beaubrun, 299 A.D.2d 458, 749 N.Y.S.2d 894).
Moreover, in light of the relevant factors, including the plaintiff's lack of diligence, prejudice to the defendants, and the plaintiff's failure to establish that he had a meritorious claim, the plaintiff was not entitled to an extension in the interest of justice (see Leader v. Maroney, Ponzini & Spencer, supra ).
Thank you for your feedback!
A free source of state and federal court opinions, state laws, and the United States Code. For more information about the legal concepts addressed by these cases and statutes visit FindLaw's Learn About the Law.
Decided: May 31, 2005
Court: Supreme Court, Appellate Division, Second Department, New York.
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)