Rivera v Ostad
2007 NYSlipOp 01623
February 27, 2007
Appellate Division, First Department
As corrected through Wednesday, April 11, 2007


Felicita Rivera, Respondent,
v
David Ostad, M.D., et al., Defendants, and Cosmetic Surgery Center of New York, Appellant.

[*1]Fumuso, Kelly, DeVerna, Snyder, Swart & Farrell, LLP, Hauppauge (Scott G. Christesen of counsel), for appellant.Pe�a & Kahn, PLLC, Bronx (Hayley A. Siegel of counsel), for respondent.

Order, Supreme Court, Bronx County (Mary Ann Brigantti-Hughes, J.), entered on or about December 21, 2005, which denied appellant's motion to dismiss the complaint and granted plaintiff's cross motion for an order extending the 120-day period in which to serve appellant and to deem the second service on appellant timely, unanimously affirmed, without costs.

Appellant did in fact receive a complaint, retain counsel and serve an answer with five affirmative defenses. As the motion court held, proper service was effected only 42 days after the end of the statutory 120-day period (CPLR 306-b). The court providently exercised its discretion, in the interest of justice, in granting plaintiff an extension of time to serve the summons and complaint (see Leader v Maroney, Ponzini & Spencer, 97 NY2d 95 [2001]). Concur—Saxe, J.P., Nardelli, Buckley, Gonzalez and Sweeny, JJ.


NYPTI Decisions © 2026 is a project of New York Prosecutors Training Institute (NYPTI) made possible by leveraging the work we've done providing online research and tools to prosecutors.

NYPTI would like to thank New York State Division of Criminal Justice Services, New York State Senate's Open Legislation Project, New York State Unified Court System, New York State Law Reporting Bureau and Free Law Project for their invaluable assistance making this project possible.

Install the free RECAP extensions to help contribute to this archive. See https://free.law/recap/ for more information.