You are here: / / MOTION TO EXTEND TIME TO EFFECT SERVICE SHOULD HAVE BEEN GRANTED (SECOND...

MOTION TO EXTEND TIME TO EFFECT SERVICE SHOULD HAVE BEEN GRANTED (SECOND DEPT).

The Second Department, reversing Supreme Court, determined plaintiff’s motion to extend the time to effect service in this foreclosure action should have been granted. The initial defective service was timely and the statute of limitations ran out before the defect could be cured:

​

… [T]he Supreme Court should have granted that branch of the plaintiff’s motion which was pursuant to CPLR 306-b for leave to extend its time to serve the summons and complaint upon [defendant] in the interest of justice … . While the action was timely commenced, the statute of limitations had expired when the plaintiff moved for this relief, the timely service of process was subsequently found to have been defective, there was no identifiable prejudice to [defendant] attributable to the delay in proper service, and the complaint appears to be potentially meritorious … . US Bank N.A. v Saintus, 2017 NY Slip Op 06567, Second Dept 9-20-17

CIVIL PROCEDURE (MOTION TO EXTEND TIME TO EFFECT SERVICE SHOULD HAVE BEEN GRANTED (SECOND DEPT))/SERVICE OF PROCESS (MOTION TO EXTEND TIME TO EFFECT SERVICE SHOULD HAVE BEEN GRANTED (SECOND DEPT))

You might also like
Doctrine of Collateral Estoppel Re: Related Criminal Convictions Properly Applied
Sellers Had No Duty to Disclose Recorded Easement—Caveat Emptor
THE “NOTICE OF INTENT TO FORECLOSE” FELL SHORT OF AN ACCELERATION OF THE MORTGAGE DEBT AND DID NOT TRIGGER THE STATUTE OF LIMITATIONS FOR THE FORECLOSURE ACTION (SECOND DEPT).
PLAINTIFF HOMEOWNER WAS NOT ENTITLED TO PAYMENTS MADE TO AN UNLICENSED HOME IMPROVEMENT CONTRACTOR FOR WORK PERFORMED SOLELY ON THE GROUND THAT THE CONTRACTOR WAS UNLICENSED (SECOND DEPT).
THE UNDERWRITING GUIDELINES DID NOT SUPPORT THE UNDERWRITER’S CLAIM THAT THE LIFE INSURANCE POLICY WOULD NOT HAVE BEEN ISSUED IF THE COMPANY HAD BEEN AWARE OF PLAINTIFF’S DECEDENT’S HEART CONDITION; THEREFORE THE INSURANCE COMPANY DID NOT DEMONSTRATE, AS A MATTER OF LAW, THAT PLAINTIFF’S DECEDENT MADE A MATERIAL MISREPRESENTATION (SECOND DEPT).
PROPERTY OWNER DID NOT DEMONSTRATE LEAVES ON A STAIRWAY CONSTITUTED AN OPEN AND OBVIOUS CONDITION AND DID NOT DEMONSTRATE A LACK OF NOTICE OF THE CONDITION, SUMMARY JUDGMENT PROPERLY DENIED (SECOND DEPT).
NOTICE OF CROSS MOTION DID NOT INCLUDE THE RELIEF SOUGHT OR THE GROUNDS FOR RELIEF AS REQUIRED BY CPLR 2214 (a), CROSS MOTION PROPERLY DISMISSED (SECOND DEPT).
THE PROCESS SERVER IN THIS FORECLOSURE ACTION WAS TOLD BY DEFENDANT’S DAUGHTER THAT HE HAD THE RIGHT ADDRESS; BUT, IN FACT, DEFENDANT DID NOT RESIDE AT THAT ADDRESS; SERVICE WAS INVALID (SECOND DEPT).

Categories

Sign Up for the Mailing List to Be Notified When the Site Is Updated.

  • This field is for validation purposes and should be left unchanged.

Copyright © 2026 New York Appellate Digest, Inc.
Site by CurlyHost | Privacy Policy

DEFENDANT, AN ATTORNEY, SHOULD NOT HAVE BEEN DISQUALIFIED FROM REPRESENTING... ALTHOUGH THE DISPUTE BETWEEN PLAINTIFF AND A RABBI INVOLVED THE PURCHASE OF...