Case Name: Anzhelika Shostak, Respondent, v. City of New York et al., Defendants, and Rivka Feizovits et al., Appellants
Court: New York Supreme Court, Appellate Division
Jurisdiction: New York
Decision Date: 2016-04-27
Citations: 138 A.D.3d 1099
Docket Number: 
Parties: Anzhelika Shostak, Respondent, v City of New York et al., Defendants, and Rivka Feizovits et al., Appellants.
Judges: J.P., Austin, Maltese and Barros, JJ., concur.
Reporter: Appellate Division Reports
Volume: 138
Pages: 1099–1099

Head Matter:
Anzhelika Shostak, Respondent, v City of New York et al., Defendants, and Rivka Feizovits et al., Appellants.
[28 NYS3d 909]

Opinion:
In an action to recover damages for personal injuries, the defendants Rivka Feizovits and Alisa Feizovits appeal from so much of an order of the Supreme Court, Kings County (Partnow, J.), dated January 14, 2014, as, in effect, granted that branch of their motion which was pursuant to CPLR 3211 (a) (8) to dismiss the complaint insofar as asserted against them for lack of personal jurisdiction only to the extent of giving the plaintiff an additional 120 days to re-serve them with the summons and complaint.
Ordered that the order is affirmed insofar as appealed from, without costs or disbursements.
Under the circumstances of this case, the Supreme Court providently exercised its discretion in giving the plaintiff an additional 120 days to re-serve the defendants Rivka Feizovits and Alisa Feizovits with the summons and complaint. Dillon,
J.P., Austin, Maltese and Barros, JJ., concur.