• FindLaw
  • Caselaw
  • New York
  • NY Supreme Court, Appellate Division
  • EGGLESTON v. Borg-Warner Corporation, DaimlerChrysler Corporation (formerly known as Chrysler Corporation), and Honeywell International, Inc. (formerly known as Allied Signal, Inc., Individually and as Successor-in-Interest to the Bendix Corporation), Defendants-Respondents.

EGGLESTON v. Borg-Warner Corporation, DaimlerChrysler Corporation (formerly known as Chrysler Corporation), and Honeywell International, Inc. (formerly known as Allied Signal, Inc., Individually and as Successor-in-Interest to the Bendix Corporation), Defendants-Respondents.

Reset A A Font size: Print

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

Rose M. EGGLESTON, as Administratrix of the Estate of Ernest B. Eggleston, Deceased, and Rose M. Eggleston, Individually, Plaintiff-Appellant, v. A.C. AND S., INC., et al., Defendants, Borg-Warner Corporation, DaimlerChrysler Corporation (formerly known as Chrysler Corporation), and Honeywell International, Inc. (formerly known as Allied Signal, Inc., Individually and as Successor-in-Interest to the Bendix Corporation), Defendants-Respondents.

Decided: April 29, 2005

PRESENT:  KEHOE, J.P., GORSKI, SMITH, PINE, AND HAYES, JJ. Baron & Budd, P.C., Dallas, Texas (Renee Melancon, of the Texas Bar, Admitted ProHac Vice, of Counsel), for Plaintiff-Appellant. Donohue, Sabo, Varley & Huttner, LLP, Albany (Bruce S. Huttner of Counsel), for Defendant-Respondent Borg-Warner Corporation. Gibson, McAskill & Crosby, LLP, Buffalo (Shamus B. Mulderig of Counsel), for Defendant-Respondent DaimlerChrysler Corporation (formerly known as Chrysler Corporation). Brown & Hutchinson, Rochester (Michelle A. Hutchinson of Counsel), for Defendant-Respondent Honeywell International, Inc. (formerly known as Allied Signal, Inc., individually and as Successor-in-Interest to the Bendix Corporation).

Under the circumstances of this case, and upon its consideration of the appropriate factors (see Leader v. Maroney, Ponzini & Spencer, 97 N.Y.2d 95, 105-106, 736 N.Y.S.2d 291, 761 N.E.2d 1018;  see also Slate v. Schiavone Constr. Co., 4 N.Y.3d 816, 796 N.Y.S.2d 573, 829 N.E.2d 665, 2005 WL 705979 [Mar. 29, 2005] ), Supreme Court providently exercised its discretion in denying plaintiff's request for an extension of time “in the interest of justice” within which to effect service of the summons and complaint upon defendants (CPLR 306-b;  see Leader, 97 N.Y.2d at 106-107, 736 N.Y.S.2d 291, 761 N.E.2d 1018;  Tarzy v. Epstein, 8 A.D.3d 656, 778 N.Y.S.2d 907;   Winter v. Irizarry, 300 A.D.2d 472, 473, 751 N.Y.S.2d 415;  cf. Slate, 4 N.Y.3d at 817, 796 N.Y.S.2d 573, 829 N.E.2d 665).

It is hereby ORDERED that the order so appealed from be and the same hereby is unanimously affirmed without costs.

MEMORANDUM: