You are here: / / CROSS-MOTION TO EXTEND THE TIME FOR SERVICE OF PROCESS PURSUANT TO CPLR...
,

CROSS-MOTION TO EXTEND THE TIME FOR SERVICE OF PROCESS PURSUANT TO CPLR 306-b IN THIS FORECLOSURE ACTION PROPERLY GRANTED, THE JUDGMENT OF FORECLOSURE HAD BEEN VACATED BECAUSE DEFENDANT WAS NOT PROPERLY SERVED INITIALLY (SECOND DEPT).

The Second Department, modifying Supreme Court, determined the judgment of foreclosure should have been vacated because defendant was not served and therefore the court did not acquire personal jurisdiction. However, plaintiff’s timely cross-motion to extend the time for service pursuant to CPLR 306-b was properly granted:

“If service is not made upon a defendant within the time provided in [CPLR 306-b], the court, upon motion, shall dismiss the action without prejudice as to that defendant, or upon good cause shown or in the interest of justice, extend the time for service” … . Good cause requires the plaintiff to demonstrate, as a threshold matter, “reasonably diligent efforts” in attempting to effect service … . In deciding whether, in the interest of justice, to grant an extension of time to serve a summons and complaint, “the court may consider diligence, or lack thereof, along with any other relevant factor in making its determination, including expiration of the Statute of Limitations, the [potentially] meritorious nature of the cause of action, the length of delay in service, the promptness of a plaintiff’s request for the extension of time, and prejudice to defendant” … . “A determination of whether to grant the extension in the interest of justice is generally within the discretion of the motion court” … . Bank United, FSB v Verbitsky, 2018 NY Slip Op 08623, Second Dept 12-19-18

 

You might also like
IN ORDER TO HOLD A PROPERTY OWNER LIABLE FOR THE CREATION OF A DANGEROUS CONDITION, HERE THE INSTALLATION OF A COMPOSITE MATERIAL AT THE TOP OF A STAIRWELL WHICH ALLEGEDLY BECAME SLIPPERY WHEN WET, A PLAINTIFF MUST SHOW THE DEFENDANT WAS AWARE OF THE DANGER (SECOND DEPT).
THE NURSING HOME SUED BY DECEDENT’S DAUGHTER AS EXECUTOR OF HER MOTHER’S ESTATE BROUGHT A THIRD-PARTY ACTION AGAINST THE DAUGHTER ALLEGING HER MOTHER’S INJURIES DID NOT RESULT FROM A FALL AT THE NURSING HOME BUT RATHER FROM THE DAUGHTER’S NEGLIGENT FAILURE TO FOLLOW THE NURSING HOME’S INSTRUCTIONS FOR THE HOME CARE AND SUPERVISION OF HER MOTHER; UNDER THE FACTS OF THIS CASE THERE EXISTED NO DUTY OF CARE UNDER WHICH THE DAUGHTER COULD BE HELD LIABLE FOR CONTRIBUTION BY THE NURSING HOME (SECOND DEPT).
Attempted Murder and Attempted Robbery Convictions, Under the Facts, Required Concurrent, Not Consecutive, Sentences—Applicable Law Described in Some Depth
DEFENDANT WAS A GOOD-FAITH PURCHASER OF THE REAL PROPERTY AND WAS ENTITLED TO A DECLARATION OF SOLE OWNERSHIP; DEFENDANT PURCHASED THE PROPERTY FROM THE RECORD OWNER AND WAS UNAWARE OF THE UNRECORDED BENEFICIAL OWNERSHIP AGREEMENT BETWEEN THE RECORD OWNER AND PLAINTIFF WHO RESIDED ON THE PROPERTY; THE FACT THAT PLAINTIFF FILED A NOTICE OF PENDENCY BEFORE DEFENDANT RECORDED THE DEED HAD NO EFFECT (SECOND DEPT).
FOIL Request Should Not Have Been Denied—Questions of Fact About Ability to Retrieve Documents
THE CRITERIA FOR PIERCING THE CORPORATE VEIL IN THIS PERSONAL INJURY ACTION AGAINST A BAR OWNED AND OPERATED BY A LIMITED LIABILITY COMPANY WERE NOT MET; THE OVER $2,000,000 JUDGMENT AGAINST THE SOLE MEMBER OF THE LLC REVERSED (SECOND DEPT).
PLAINTIFF IN THIS LABOR LAW 240 (1) ACTION WAS INJURED WHEN THE ROOF OF THE BUILDING COLLAPSED, HIS ACTION AGAINST HIS EMPLOYER (A DEMOLITION COMPANY) WAS BARRED BY THE EXCLUSIVITY PROVISIONS OF THE WORKERS’ COMPENSATION LAW, QUESTION OF FACT WHETHER THE COLLAPSE WAS FORESEEABLE IN THE ACTION AGAINST THE BUILDING OWNER, EVIDENCE THAT BEAMS HAD BEEN CUT WAS INADMISSIBLE HEARSAY (SECOND DEPT).
PLAINTIFF BANK DID NOT SEND THE 90-DAY FORECLOSURE NOTICE IN A SEPARATE ENVELOPE AS REQUIRED BY RPAPL 1304; THEREFORE THE BANK’S MOTION FOR SUMMARY JUDGMENT IN THIS FORECLOSURE ACTION SHOULD NOT HAVE BEEN GRANTED AND DEFENDANTS’ MOTION FOR SUMMARY JUDGMENT SHOULD HAVE BEEN GRANTED (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

EVIDENCE DID NOT SUPPORT TEMPORARY REMOVAL OF CHILD FROM FATHER’S CUSTODY... DEFENDANT PROPERTY MANAGER AND DEFENDANT OWNER DID NOT DEMONSTRATE A LACK OF...