Agudo v Zhinin
2012 NY Slip Op 02442 [94 AD3d 680]
April 3, 2012
Appellate Division, Second Department
As corrected through Wednesday, May 23, 2012


Maria Canales Agudo, Appellant,
v
Gloria Zhinin,Defendant, and Dana Kosits et al., Respondents.

[*1]Michael H. Joseph, PLLC, White Plains, N.Y., for appellant.

Mead, Hecht, Conklin & Gallagher, LLP, White Plains, N.Y. (Elizabeth M. Hecht ofcounsel), for respondents.

In an action to recover damages for personal injuries, the plaintiff appeals, as limited by herbrief, from so much of an order of the Supreme Court, Westchester County (Liebowitz, J.),entered April 20, 2011, as, in effect, denied her cross motion pursuant to CPLR 306-b for anextension of time to serve the summons and complaint upon the defendants Dana Kosits and LisaKosits.

Ordered that the order is affirmed insofar as appealed from, with costs.

The Supreme Court did not improvidently exercise its discretion by, in effect, denying theplaintiff's cross motion pursuant to CPLR 306-b for an extension of time to serve the summonsand complaint upon the defendants Dana Kosits and Lisa Kosits (hereinafter together thedefendants). The plaintiff did not show good cause for failing to properly effect service of thesummons and complaint on the defendants in the first place (see CPLR 306-b; Khodeeva v Chi Chung Yip, 84 AD3d1030, 1030-1031 [2011]; Matter ofPalmieri v New York State Dept. of Envtl. Conservation, 31 AD3d 647, 647-648[2006], cert denied 550 US 903 [2007]; cf. McSorley v Spear, 50 AD3d 652 [2008]). In addition, theplaintiff did not establish that the interest of justice would be served by extending the time toeffect proper service. "The interest of justice standard requires a careful judicial analysis of thefactual setting of the case and a balancing of the competing interests presented by the parties"(Leader v Maroney, Ponzini & Spencer, 97 NY2d 95, 105 [2001]; see Colon v Bailey, 26 AD3d 454,455-456 [2006]). Here, the plaintiff's failure, in particular, to make any attempt to demonstratethat her claim was meritorious warranted denial of her cross motion (see Colon v Bailey,26 AD3d at 456). Dillon, J.P., Balkin, Belen and Austin, 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.