Edlyn Alexander v Dave Alexander

Annotate this Case
Alexander v Alexander 2006 NY Slip Op 06318 [32 AD3d 524] August 29, 2006 Appellate Division, Second Department Published by New York State Law Reporting Bureau pursuant to Judiciary Law § 431. As corrected through Wednesday, October 11, 2006

Edlyn Alexander, Respondent,
v
Dave Alexander, Appellant.

—[*1]

In an action for a divorce and ancillary relief, the defendant appeals, as limited by his brief, from so much of an order of the Supreme Court, Kings County (Sunshine, J.), dated September 26, 2005, as, in effect, granted that branch of the plaintiff's motion which was for an extension of time to serve the summons and complaint pursuant to CPLR 306-b, and denied his cross motion to dismiss the complaint for lack of personal jurisdiction.

Ordered that the order is reversed insofar as appealed from, on the law and in the exercise of discretion, with costs, that branch of the plaintiff's motion which was for an extension of time to serve the summons and complaint pursuant to CPLR 306-b is denied, the cross motion is granted, and the complaint is dismissed.

The plaintiff failed to serve the defendant in accordance with CPLR 306-b. Under the circumstances of this case, including the plaintiff's failure to proceed at a hearing to determine the validity of service of process, and the plaintiff's lack of diligence throughout the proceeding, it was an improvident exercise of the Supreme Court's discretion to, in effect, grant that branch of the plaintiff's motion which was for an extension of time to serve the summons and complaint pursuant to CPLR 306-b (see Leader v Maroney, Ponzini & Spencer, 97 NY2d 95 [2001]; Baione v Central Suffolk Hosp., 14 AD3d 635 [2005]; Winter v Irizarry, 300 AD2d 472 [2002]; Matter of DeSilva v Town of Brookhaven, 299 AD2d 409 [2002]). Accordingly, the defendant's cross motion to dismiss the complaint for lack of personal jurisdiction should have been granted (see CPLR 3211 [a] [8]; Colon v Bailey, 26 AD3d [*2]454 [2006]). Schmidt, J.P., Ritter, Santucci and Lunn, JJ., concur.

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.