From Casetext: Smarter Legal Research

Bochen v. Schieffelin Somerset

Appellate Division of the Supreme Court of New York, Second Department
Aug 18, 1997
242 A.D.2d 314 (N.Y. App. Div. 1997)

Opinion

August 18, 1997

Appeal from the Supreme Court, Kings County (Golden, J.).


Ordered that the order is affirmed, with one bill of costs.

The plaintiffs concede that they failed to file proof of service within 120 days after the summons and complaint were filed. Since the defendants had not appeared in the action within that 120-day period, the complaint was automatically dismissed pursuant to CPLR 306-b (a) ( see, Long v. Quinn, 234 A.D.2d 520; Brackett v. St. Mary's Hosp., 233 A.D.2d 357). Consequently, there was no action pending for which nunc pro tunc relief could be granted ( see, Long v. Quinn, supra; Mohammed v. Elassal, 226 A.D.2d 509). The plaintiffs' only remedy was to timely commence a second action ( see, Brackett v. St. Mary's Hosp., supra; Matter of Winston v. Freshwater Wetlands Appeals Bd., 224 A.D.2d 160; CPLR 306-b [b]; 205 [a]), which they failed to do.

O'Brien, J.P., Sullivan, Goldstein and Luciano, JJ., concur.


Summaries of

Bochen v. Schieffelin Somerset

Appellate Division of the Supreme Court of New York, Second Department
Aug 18, 1997
242 A.D.2d 314 (N.Y. App. Div. 1997)
Case details for

Bochen v. Schieffelin Somerset

Case Details

Full title:MAREK BOCHEN et al., Appellants, v. SCHIEFFELIN SOMERSET Co. et al.…

Court:Appellate Division of the Supreme Court of New York, Second Department

Date published: Aug 18, 1997

Citations

242 A.D.2d 314 (N.Y. App. Div. 1997)
661 N.Y.S.2d 982

Citing Cases

Stulberger v. Bellucci

The plaintiff commenced the instant action by the filing of a summons and complaint on October 19, 1994.…

Maudsley-Marino v. Navas

Ordered that the respondents are awarded one bill of costs. The failure of the plaintiffs to file proof of…