You are here: / / ALTHOUGH THE FAILURE TO FILE PROOF OF SERVICE IS NOT A JURISDICTIONAL DEFECT...
,

ALTHOUGH THE FAILURE TO FILE PROOF OF SERVICE IS NOT A JURISDICTIONAL DEFECT AND CAN BE CURED SUA SPONTE, HERE THE PLAINTIFFS DID NOT PROPERLY SEEK LEAVE TO EXCUSE THE FAILURE AND THE JUDGE DID NOT GRANT PLAINTIFFS LEAVE TO FILE A LATE PROOF OF SERVICE; THE SERVICE WHICH WAS ALLOWED TO STAND BY THE JUDGE WAS THEREFORE A NULLITY (SECOND DEPT).

The Second Department, reversing Supreme Court, determined the judge should not granted plaintiffs leave to file late proof of service on defendant Joffe. Plaintiffs offered no excuse for the failure:

Supreme Court granted that branch of the plaintiffs’ motion which was for a declaration that Joffe was properly served with process pursuant to CPLR 308(2) and 313. The court did not acknowledge or address Joffe’s argument that the plaintiffs’ proof of service had not been filed with the court within the requisite time. The court recognized, but did not reach the merits of, that branch of the plaintiffs’ motion which was, in the alternative, pursuant to CPLR 306-b to extend the time to serve Joffe by 120 additional days. The court, in effect, denied the alternative branch of the plaintiffs’ motion on the ground that it was academic.

… CPLR 308(2) provides that “proof of such service shall be filed with the clerk of the court designated in the summons within twenty days of either such delivery or mailing, whichever is effected later.”

… [T]he failure to file timely proof of service does not constitute a jurisdictional defect … . Rather, “[t]he failure to file proof of service is a procedural irregularity . . . that may be cured by motion or sua sponte by the court in its discretion pursuant to CPLR 2004” … .

Here, since the plaintiffs did not properly seek leave to excuse their failure to timely file proof of service, and the Supreme Court did not grant them leave to file proof of service beyond the statutory window (see CPLR 308[2]), the proof of service relating to Joffe was a nullity … . Under the circumstances, the court should have denied that branch of the plaintiffs’ motion which was for a declaration that Joffe was properly served with process pursuant to CPLR 308(2) and 313. Chunyin Li v Joffe, 2022 NY Slip Op 06227, Second Dept 11-9-22

Practice Point: The failure to file proof of service is not a jurisdictional defect and can be cured by the judge sua sponte. Here however the plaintiffs did not properly seek leave to excuse their failure to timely file proof of service and the judge did not grant plaintiffs leave to file late proof of service, rendering the service on the defendant (allowed to stand by the judge) a nullity.

 

You might also like
TIME TO SERVE DEFENDANT, WHO LIVED IN INDIA, IN THIS FORECLOSURE ACTION WAS PROPERLY EXTENDED IN THE INTEREST OF JUSTICE BUT SUPREME COURT SHOULD NOT HAVE DIRECTED AN ALTERNATIVE METHOD OF SERVICE, CRITERIA EXPLAINED (SECOND DEPT).
Plaintiff’s Deposition Testimony Stating that She Did Not Know the Cause of Her Fall Was Fatal to the Action—the Deposition Testimony Was Not Overcome by a “Feigned Issue” Subsequently Raised in an Affidavit or by Expert Opinion Evidence Alleging the Cause of the Fall
CONTRACTUAL AGREEMENT TO A ONE YEAR STATUTE OF LIMITATIONS FOR A BREACH OF CONTRACT ACTION SHOULD NOT HAVE BEEN ENFORCED, PLAINTIFF HAD NO CONTROL OVER WHEN THE DEFENDANT COULD TAKE AN ACTION WHICH BREACHED THE CONTRACT, HERE THE ALLEGED BREACH BY DEFENDANT DIDN’T TAKE PLACE UNTIL AFTER THE LIMITATIONS PERIOD (SECOND DEPT).
Question of Fact Whether a Building Manager Owed a Duty to Plaintiff—Plaintiff, a Sidewalk Pedestrian, Was Struck by Window-Washing Equipment—The Window Washing Service Was an Independent Contractor Hired by the Building Manager—Question of Fact Raised Whether a Duty to the Plaintiff Ran from the Building Manager Because of the Inherently Dangerous Work the Independent Contractor Was Hired to Do and Because of the Nature of the Contract Between the Building Manager and the Building Owner—The Court Noted that the Property Owners Were Not Liable Because Ownership and Control of the Building on the Property Had Been Transferred (to the Building Owner)
IN THIS STAIRWAY SLIP AND FALL CASE, PLAINTIFF WAS ENTITLED TO DISCOVERY OF PRE-ACCIDENT REPAIRS BUT NOT POST-ACCIDENT REPAIRS (SECOND DEPT).
THE BANK IN THIS FORECLOSURE ACTION DID NOT PROVIDE SUFFICIENT PROOF OF COMPLIANCE WITH THE NOTICE REQUIREMENTS OF RPAPL 1304 AND THE MORTGAGE (SECOND DEPT).
THE COMPLAINT AGAINST THE LESSOR OF THE CAR INVOLVED IN THE TRAFFIC ACCIDENT SHOULD NOT HAVE BEEN DISMISSED PURSUANT TO THE GRAVES AMENDMENT; DEFENDANT LESSOR DID NOT DEMONSTRATE THE ALLEGATION THE CAR WAS NEGLIGENTLY MAINTAINED WAS “NOT A FACT AT ALL” (SECOND DEPT). ​
BANK DID NOT DEMONSTRATE COMPLIANCE WITH THE NOTICE PROVISIONS OF THE MORTGAGE IN THIS FORECLOSURE PROCEEDING, THE BANK’S MOTION FOR SUMMARY JUDGMENT SHOULD NOT 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

ALTHOUGH DEFENDANT PORT AUTHORITY OF NEW YORK AND NEW JERSEY (PANYNJ) WAS THE... THE BANK INCLUDED OTHER NOTICES WITH THE NOTICE OF DEFAULT, A VIOLATION OF THE...