Varon v Maimonides Med. Ctr.
2009 NY Slip Op 08213 [67 AD3d 779]
November 10, 2009
Appellate Division, Second Department
As corrected through Wednesday, January 6, 2010


Aura Varon et al., Appellants,
v
Maimonides MedicalCenter, Respondent.

[*1]Suckle Schlesinger PLLC, New York, N.Y. (Howard A. Suckle and Melissa K. Corraoof counsel), for appellants.

McAloon & Friedman, P.C., New York, N.Y. (Laura R. Shapiro, Timothy J. O'Shaughnessy,and Linda P. McMillan of counsel), for respondent.

In an action to recover damages for medical malpractice and wrongful death, the plaintiffsappeal, (1), as limited by their brief, from so much of an order of the Supreme Court, KingsCounty (Jackson, J.), dated July 2, 2008, as denied their motion pursuant to CPLR 306-b toextend their time, nunc pro tunc, to serve the summons and complaint upon the defendant, and(2) from a judgment of the same court dated August 21, 2008, which dismissed the complaint.

Ordered that the appeal from the order is dismissed; and it is further,

Ordered that the judgment is affirmed; and it is further,

Ordered that one bill of costs is awarded to the defendant.

The appeal from the intermediate order must be dismissed because the right of direct appealtherefrom terminated with the entry of judgment in the action (see Matter of Aho, 39NY2d 241, 248 [1976]). The issues raised on the appeal from the order are brought up for reviewand have been considered on the appeal from the judgment (see CPLR 5501 [a] [1]).[*2]

The Supreme Court providently exercised its discretionin denying the plaintiffs' motion pursuant to CPLR 306-b to extend their time, nunc pro tunc, toserve the summons and complaint upon the defendant. The plaintiffs failed to establish that goodcause existed to extend the time for service. Despite the expiration of the statute of limitations,the record demonstrates an extended delay in service, lack of diligence in effecting service, andthe failure to promptly move for an extension (see Leader v Maroney, Ponzini &Spencer, 97 NY2d 95 [2001]). Accordingly, the plaintiffs failed to establish good cause foran extension or that the interests of justice would be served by an extension. Thus, the complaintwas properly dismissed. Rivera, J.P., Eng, Chambers and Hall, JJ., concur.


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.