You are here: / / THE ACTION WAS NOT COMMENCED UNTIL TEN DAYS BEFORE THE STATUTE OF LIMITATIONS...
,

THE ACTION WAS NOT COMMENCED UNTIL TEN DAYS BEFORE THE STATUTE OF LIMITATIONS EXPIRED AND PLAINTIFF’S COUNSEL DID NOT TIMELY COMPLETE SERVICE BY MAILING THE SUMMONS AND COMPLAINT; PLAINTIFF WAS NOT ENTITLED TO AN EXTENSION OF TIME TO SERVE THE DEFENDANT BECAUSE LAW OFFICE FAILURE PRECLUDED AN EXTENSION FOR GOOD CAUSE AND THE LACK OF DILIGENCE PRECLUDED AN EXTENSION IN THE INTEREST OF JUSTICE (SECOND DEPT).

The Second Department determined plaintiff did not demonstrate could good cause for failing to timely mail the summons and complaint to defendant and was not entitled to an extension of time to serve the defendant in the interest of justice. The court noted that law-office-failure precludes an extension for good cause, and the attorney’s lack of diligence in filing the action (ten days before the expiration of the statute of limitations) and in serving the pleadings ruled out an extension in the interest of justice:

The plaintiff failed to demonstrate that she was entitled to an extension of time to serve Marin [defendant] for good cause, as she failed to establish that she exercised reasonably diligent efforts in attempting to effect proper service … . The plaintiff’s attorney’s mistake in failing to note, until pointed out in the defendants’ reply papers, that Marin had not been served by mail, amounts to law office failure, which does not constitute good cause … .

… [T]he plaintiff failed to establish her entitlement to an extension of time for service in the interest of justice given the lack of diligence in commencing the action, which was not commenced until 10 days before the statute of limitations expired; the lack of diligence in effecting service; the more than six-month delay between the time the summons and complaint were filed and the time the plaintiff’s cross motion, inter alia, for an extension was made; and the lack of an excuse, other than law office failure, for the failure to effect timely service … . Jordan-Covert v Petroleum Kings, LLC, 2021 NY Slip Op 05960, Second Dept 11-3-21

 

You might also like
REMOVING PORTABLE LIGHTING EQUIPMENT IS NOT ‘ALTERING’ A STRUCTURE WITHIN THE MEANING OF LABOR LAW 240(1), DEFENDANTS’ MOTION FOR SUMMARY JUDGMENT SHOULD HAVE BEEN GRANTED (SECOND DEPT).
RPAPL 1301(3) PROHIBITS MORE THAN ONE FORECLOSURE AT A TIME; THE VIOLATION OF THAT STATUTE HERE WAS A MERE IRREGULARITY WHICH SHOULD HAVE BEEN DISREGARDED; THE PRIOR ACTION WAS DISMISSED AFTER THE INSTANT ACTION WAS COMMENCED (SECOND DEPT).
A TREE IS NOT A “BUILDING OR STRUCTURE” WITHIN THE MEANING OF LABOR LAW 240 (1); THEREFORE PLAINTIFF’S INJURY, INCURRED WHILE CUTTING A LIMB OFF A TREE, WAS NOT COVERED BY THE LABOR LAW (SECOND DEPT).
SUPREME COURT SHOULD NOT HAVE, SUA SPONTE, FOUND THAT A DEFENDANT WHO HAD NOT BEEN SERVED WAS A NECESSARY PARTY AND SHOULD NOT HAVE DISMISSED THE FORECLOSURE ACTION AGAINST OTHER DEFENDANTS ON THAT GROUND (SECOND DEPT).
THE BANK’S SECOND MOTION IN THIS FORECLOSURE ACTION DID NOT MEET THE CRITERIA FOR A MOTION TO RENEW AND VIOLATED THE “SUCCESSIVE SUMMARY JUDGMENT MOTION” RULE (SECOND DEPT).
BANK DID NOT DEMONSTRATE COMPLIANCE WITH THE NOTICE PROVISIONS OF REAL PROPERTY ACTIONS AND PROCEEDINGS LAW 1304, SUMMARY JUDGMENT SHOULD NOT HAVE BEEN GRANTED (SECOND DEPT).
Prior Written Notice of Defect Not Needed Where It Is Alleged Municipality Created Dangerous Condition.
THE JUDGE SHOULD HAVE DECLARED A MISTRIAL AFTER THE JURY’S REPEATED COMMUNICATIONS EXPLAINING THEY COULD NOT REACH A UNANIMOUS VERDICT; NEW TRIAL ORDERED (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

PLAINTIFF’S DECEDENT WAS KILLED BY A DRIVER WHO WAS BEING PURSUED BY THE... PLAINTIFF’S DECEDENT, A PATIENT IN DEFENDANT REHAB FACILITY, FELL WHEN...