You are here: / / PLAINTIFF DID NOT DEMONSTRATE DEFENDANT WAS PROPERLY SERVED OR EVEN NOTIFIED...
,

PLAINTIFF DID NOT DEMONSTRATE DEFENDANT WAS PROPERLY SERVED OR EVEN NOTIFIED OF THE FORECLOSURE ACTION; THE COURT NEVER HAD JURISDICTION OVER DEFENDANT AND THE MOTION TO EXTEND THE TIME TO SERVE HER SHOULD NOT HAVE BEEN GRANTED (SECOND DEPT). ​

The Second Department, reversing Supreme Court, determined plaintiff in this foreclosure action did not demonstrate defendant was properly served with the summons and complaint. Therefore the court never had jurisdiction over the defendant:

… [T]he plaintiff was on notice in December 2018 that service upon the defendant allegedly was defective when the defendant moved to dismiss the complaint for lack of personal jurisdiction. The plaintiff nonetheless waited nearly 10 months thereafter to move for an extension of time to serve the defendant. Moreover, the plaintiff’s motion was made more than two months after the hearing before the special referee concluded, even though the evidence at the hearing demonstrated that the defendant had been residing in Canada for decades … . Although the statute of limitations had already expired by the time the plaintiff moved for an extension of time, the plaintiff failed to demonstrate that it diligently prosecuted this action … . “Moreover, . . . the plaintiff submitted no evidence that [the defendant] had actual notice of the action against her within the 120-day service period” … . Further, the plaintiff failed to rebut the inference [*3]of substantial prejudice to the defendant that arose from the protracted delay in obtaining such notice … . Accordingly, the Supreme Court improvidently exercised its discretion in granting that branch of the plaintiff’s motion which was pursuant to CPLR 306-b to extend the time to serve the summons and complaint upon the defendant.

Since the defendant was not properly served with the summons and complaint and the plaintiff failed to demonstrate entitlement to an extension of time to effectuate service, the Supreme Court should have granted the defendant’s motion pursuant to CPLR 3211(a)(8) to dismiss the complaint insofar as asserted against her. “The court does not have personal jurisdiction over a defendant when a plaintiff fails to properly effectuate service of process. In those instances in which process has not been served upon a defendant, all subsequent proceedings will be rendered null and void” … . HSBC Bank USA, N.A. v Labin, 2024 NY Slip Op 05963, Second Dept 11-27-24

Practice Point: Consult this decision for the analytical criteria for determining whether a motion to extend the time to serve a defendant with the summons and complaint should be granted.

 

You might also like
PROOF OF A PROBATION VIOLATION SUBMITTED AFTER THE CLOSE OF EVIDENCE SHOULD NOT HAVE BEEN CONSIDERED (SECOND DEPT).
Motion to Compel Plaintiff to Submit to a Psychological Test Should Have Been Granted—Plaintiff Placed Her Mental Condition In Issue and Did Not Demonstrate the Test Was Invasive or Harmful
THE ZONE OF DANGER THEORY OF LIABILITY IS AVAILABLE ONLY TO THE IMMEDIATE RELATIVES OF THE INJURED PARTY; PETITIONERS’ CHILDREN WITNESSED THE FATAL INJURY TO ANOTHER STUDENT WHO WAS NOT RELATED; PETITIONERS’ REQUEST FOR LEAVE TO FILE A LATE NOTICE OF CLAIM AGAINST THE SCHOOL DISTRICT ALLEGING INTENTIONAL AND NEGLIGENT INFLICTION OF EMOTIONAL DISTRESS SHOULD NOT HAVE BEEN GRANTED (SECOND DEPT).
FAILURE TO TIMELY FILE A CONSENT TO CHANGE ATTORNEY DID NOT JUSTIFY THE DENIAL OF A MOTION BROUGHT BY THE NEW ATTORNEY, DEFENDANT’S MOTION TO VACATE THE DEFAULT JUDGMENT SHOULD HAVE BEEN GRANTED BECAUSE THE PROCESS SERVER WAS UNABLE TO PRODUCE HIS LOG BOOK (SECOND DEPT).
DEFECT WHICH CAUSED SLIP AND FALL WAS TRIVIAL AS A MATTER OF LAW 2ND DEPT.
As a Contingent Remainder of the Subject Trust, the “Charitable Trust” Had the Right to Intervene in a Proceeding to Remove and Replace the Trustee of the Subject Trust
CONSECUTIVE SENTENCES NOT SUPPORTED BY ALLEGATIONS OR PLEA ALLOCUTION, NO ALLEGATION THE THREE CRIMINAL POSSESSION OF A WEAPON COUNTS WERE SEPARATE ACTS (SECOND DEPT).
AFFIDAVIT OF MERIT DID NOT DEMONSTRATE THE AFFIANT HAD THE AUTHORITY TO ACT ON BEHALF OF THE BANK IN THIS FORECLOSURE ACTION, DEFAULT 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

THE ERRORS MADE IN THE NOTICE OF CLAIM IN THIS SLIP AND FALL CASE WERE NOT MADE... THE HISTORY OF THE INTERACTION BETWEEN INFANT PLAINTIFF AND ANOTHER STUDENT...