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.
IN RE: Greenburgh Central School District No. 7, et al., appellants, v. Westchester County Human Rights Commission, respondent.
Argued-February 7, 2011
DECISION & ORDER
In a proceeding pursuant to CPLR article 78 to review a determination of the Westchester County Human Rights Commission dated July 10, 2009, which, after a hearing, confirmed the determination of an Administrative Law Judge dated June 22, 2009, finding that the petitioners engaged in unlawful age discrimination in violation of the Westchester County Human Rights Law and imposing a monetary penalty, the petitioners appeal from a judgment of the Supreme Court, Westchester County (Capeci, J.), dated April 28, 2010, which granted that branch of the respondent's motion which was to dismiss the proceeding for lack of personal jurisdiction and denied that branch of their cross motion which was to extend the time to serve the notice of petition and petition, and dismissed the proceeding for lack of personal jurisdiction.
ORDERED that the judgment is affirmed, with costs.
It is undisputed that the petitioners failed to properly serve the respondent with the notice of petition and petition in accordance with CPLR 312 (see Matter of Heinisch v. Goehringer, 121 A.D.2d 721). The petitioners failed to demonstrate good cause for an extension of time to serve, and failed to show that such an extension is warranted in the interest of justice (see CPLR 306-b). Among other things, the petitioners failed to demonstrate diligence in their attempt at service, and failed to demonstrate a potentially meritorious argument in support of the petition. Accordingly, the Supreme Court properly granted that branch of the respondent's motion which was to dismiss the proceeding for lack of personal jurisdiction and denied that branch of the petitioners' cross motion which was to extend the time to serve the notice of petition and petition (see Leader v. Maroney, Ponzini & Spencer, 97 N.Y.2d 95, 105-106; Calloway v. Wells, 79 AD3d 786; Redman v South Is. Orthopaedic Group, P.C., 78 AD3d 1147).
RIVERA, J.P., BALKIN, LEVENTHAL and HALL, JJ., concur.
ENTER:
Matthew G. Kiernan
Clerk of the Court
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.
Docket No: 2010-05809 (Index No. 26456 /09)
Decided: March 15, 2011
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)