Stryker v. StelmakStryker v. Stelmak
Larry Stryker, Respondent-Appellant, v Alex Stelmak, Appellant-Respondent, and Stan Mashov, Respondent, et al., Defendants. [892 NYS2d 102]
We reject defendant Stelmak‘s argument that extension of the 120-day period to effect proper service of an already filed summons and complaint (
Limiting the extension of time for service to the causes of action for malicious prosecution and abuse of process was not an abuse of the court‘s discretion. Plaintiff was collaterally estopped from contesting the absence of merit in his remaining causes (see Leader v Maroney, Ponzini & Spencer, 97 NY2d 95, 105-106 [2001]), as the time periods were previously determined by the federal court. Thus, such causes of action are barred by the applicable statutes of limitations. Plaintiffs theory that the limitations periods were tolled by operation of