John Slate v Schiavone Construction Company

Slate v Schiavone Constr. Co. 2005 NY Slip Op 02412 [4 NY3d 816] March 29, 2005 Court of Appeals Published by New York State Law Reporting Bureau pursuant to Judiciary Law § 431. As corrected through Wednesday, June 29, 2005

[*1] John Slate, Respondent,
v
Schiavone Construction Company, Appellant.

Decided March 29, 2005

Slate v Schiavone Constr. Co., 10 AD3d 1, reversed.

APPEARANCES OF COUNSEL

Wilson, Elser, Moskowtiz, Edelman & Dicker LLP, New York City (Richard E. Lerner of counsel), for appellant.

Cascione Purcigliotti & Galluzzi, P.C., New York City (Thomas G. Cascione of counsel), for respondent.

OPINION OF THE COURT

Memorandum.

The order of the Appellate Division should be reversed, with costs, defendant's motion to dismiss the complaint granted and the certified question answered in the negative. In view of the extreme lack of diligence shown by plaintiff, and the long delay (more than a year and a half after running of the statute of limitations) before defendant received any notice of the action, the courts below abused their discretion in granting plaintiff an extension to serve [*2]defendant "in the interest of justice" pursuant to CPLR 306-b (see Leader v Maroney, Ponzini & Spencer, 97 NY2d 95, 105-106 [2001]).

Chief Judge Kaye and Judges G.B. Smith, Ciparick, Rosenblatt, Graffeo, Read and R.S. Smith concur in memorandum.

On review of submissions pursuant to section 500.4 of the Rules of the Court of Appeals (22 NYCRR 500.4), order reversed, etc.