Flushing Natl. Bank v. Brightside Mfg

In Flushing Natl. Bank v. Brightside Mfg., 59 Misc 2d 108 [Sup Ct, Queens County 1969], the Supreme Court appeared to advocate a different result. Observing (at 109) that CPLR 3213 was "intended to be dispositive of disputes in a more simple, direct and time saving manner," and that the court should therefore "further this legislative intent without setting up hypertechnical barriers to the end sought by enactment of the statute," the court held (at 109-110): "Since it is almost impossible to know when service will be accomplished, selection of a return date may be difficult of computation and the court should exercise discretion by giving defendants sufficient time to answer the moving papers, while retaining jurisdiction."