Gilkes v New York Wholesale Paper Corp.
Annotate this CaseDecided on November 15, 2011
Mazzarelli, J.P., Catterson, Moskowitz, Renwick, Abdus-Salaam, JJ. 6022-
6023 104730/09
[*1]Ivor W. Gilkes, Jr., Plaintiff-Respondent,
v
New York Wholesale Paper Corp., Defendant-Appellant.
Baron Law Firm, PLLC, East Northport (Jeffrey T. Baron of
counsel), for appellant.
Law Offices of Mark S. Gray, New York (Peter J. Eliopoulos of
counsel), for respondent.
Order, Supreme Court, New York County (George J. Silver, J.), entered August 16, 2010, which, to the extent appealed from as limited by the briefs, granted plaintiff's motion pursuant to CPLR 306-b to extend his time to serve the summons and complaint, and denied defendant's cross motion to dismiss for failure to timely serve said process, unanimously affirmed, without costs. Order, same court and Justice, entered March 24, 2011, which granted reargument and adhered to its prior decision, unanimously affirmed, without costs.
The IAS court providently exercised its discretion, in the interest of justice, by granting plaintiff's motion for an extension of time to serve the summons and complaint. The court properly considered pertinent factors such as plaintiff's showing of merit, the expiration of the statute of limitations, the prompt receipt of plaintiff's notice of claim by defendant's insurer, and the failure of defendant's employee to provide contact information for himself or defendant at the time of the accident (see Leader v Maroney, 97 NY2d 95, 105-106 [2001]; Sutter v Reyes, 60 AD3d 448 [2009]; Estey-Dorsa v Chavez, 27 AD3d 277, 278 [2006]).
THIS CONSTITUTES THE DECISION AND ORDER
OF THE SUPREME COURT, APPELLATE DIVISION, FIRST DEPARTMENT.
ENTERED: NOVEMBER 15, 2011
CLERK
Some case metadata and case summaries were written with the help of AI, which can produce inaccuracies. You should read the full case before relying on it for legal research purposes.
This site is protected by reCAPTCHA and the Google Privacy Policy and Terms of Service apply.
