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
CONDITIONAL ORDER DID NOT MEET THE NOTICE REQUIREMENTS OF CPLR 3216, FORECLOSURE ACTION SHOULD NOT HAVE BEEN ADMINISTRATIVELY DISMISSED (SECOND DEPT).
ALTHOUGH THE BACKHOE WHICH COLLIDED WITH PLAINTIFF’S VEHICLE HAD BEEN USED FOR ROADWORK THAT DAY, AT THE TIME OF THE ACCIDENT THE BACKHOE WAS BEING USED TO TRANSPORT GRAVEL TO THE WORK SITE; THE SECOND DEPARTMENT DETERMINED THE BACKHOE WAS NOT “ACTIVELY ENGAGED” IN ROADWORK AT THE TIME OF THE ACCIDENT AND, THEREFORE, THE HIGHER “RECKLESS DISREGARD” STANDARD FOR LIABILITY IN THE VEHICLE AND TRAFFIC LAW DID NOT APPLY (SECOND DEPT).
NEGLIGENCE ACTION STEMMING FROM AN ALLEGED BREACH OF CONTRACT SHOULD HAVE BEEN DISMISSED, CRITERIA FOR A VALID NEGLIGENCE CAUSE OF ACTION IN THIS CONTEXT EXPLAINED (SECOND DEPT).
Defendant’s Statements Made in Pre-Trial Plea Negotiations Should Not Have Been Admitted at Trial
Court Should Not Have Denied Biological Mother’s Petition to Enforce the Visitation Provision in a Surrender Agreement Without Making a Finding Based Upon the Best Interests of the Child—Failure to Make Such a Finding Rendered the Record Insufficient for Review—Matter Sent Back for a Hearing
STUDENT ASSUMED THE RISK OF BEING STRUCK BY A BASEBALL.
STATE DOES NOT HAVE A DUTY TO WARN SWIMMERS OF RIP CURRENTS AT STATE BEACHES.
ABSENCE OF A COMMA, STANDING ALONE, WAS NOT ENOUGH TO DICTATE THE MEANING OF A CODE PROVISION.

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...