You are here: / / PLAINTIFF SHOULD NOT HAVE BEEN GRANTED MORE TIME TO SERVE DEFENDANT UNDER...
,

PLAINTIFF SHOULD NOT HAVE BEEN GRANTED MORE TIME TO SERVE DEFENDANT UNDER EITHER THE “GOOD CAUSE” OR “INTEREST OF JUSTICE” CRITERIA (SECOND DEPT).

The Second Department, reversing Supreme Court, determined plaintiff should not have been granted more time to serve the summons and complaint under either the “good cause” or “interest of justice” criteria:

Pursuant to CPLR 306-b, a plaintiff is required to serve the summons and complaint within 120 days after commencement of the action. If service of the summons and complaint is not made upon the defendant within that time, “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” … . “To establish good cause, a plaintiff must demonstrate reasonable diligence in attempting service” … . Such a showing is not required to obtain an extension of time under the interest of justice standard, which is a broader standard intended to “‘accommodate late service that might be due to mistake, confusion or oversight, so long as there is no prejudice to the defendant'” … . “The interest of justice standard requires a careful judicial analysis of the factual setting of the case and a balancing of the competing interests presented by the parties” … . In reaching its determination, “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 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” … .

Here, the plaintiff failed to establish good cause to extend the time to serve [defendant], as no evidence was offered that she attempted to serve him with reasonable diligence. Further, … the plaintiff failed to establish that an extension of time to serve … was warranted in the interest of justice. The plaintiff failed to offer any explanation for the eight-month delay in filing the affidavit of service, the delay in moving, among other things, for leave to enter a default judgment … , and the four-month delay in moving to extend the time to serve … after the defendants had cross-moved … to dismiss the complaint … for lack of personal jurisdiction. There is no evidence in the record that [defendant] had notice of the action during the 120-day period after the commencement of the action … . Druss v Scher, 2025 NY Slip Op 02318, Second Dept 4-23-25

Practice Point: Even though the statute of limitations had passed. plaintiff’s failure to exercise reasonable diligence precluded an extension of time to serve the defendant, under either the “good cause” or “interest of justice” criteria.

 

You might also like
PLAINTIFF PROPERLY ALLOWED TO AMEND THE MEDICAL MALPRACTICE COMPLAINT AFTER THE STATUTE OF LIMITATIONS HAD RUN TO ADD A TREATING DOCTOR EMPLOYED BY A NAMED DEFENDANT PURSUANT TO THE RELATION-BACK DOCTRINE (SECOND DEPT).
THE REFEREE’S REPORT IN THIS FORECLOSURE ACTION WAS BASED ON HEARSAY; THE SECOND MORTGAGE WAS NOT DEMONSTRATED TO MEET THE REQUIRMENTS OF RPAPL 1351 (SECOND DEPT).
RECORDED JAIL PHONE CALLS MAY NOT HAVE RELATED TO THE OFFENSE WHICH WAS THE SUBJECT OF THE TRIAL, CONVICTION REVERSED (SECOND DEPT).
JUDGE DID NOT HAVE THE DISCRETION TO DENY PLAINTIFF’S MOTION FOR ARREARS AND COUNSEL FEES MADE AFTER THE JUDGMENT OF DIVORCE; ANY DISPUTE ABOUT THE AMOUNT MUST BE RESOLVED BY A HEARING (SECOND DEPT).
EXPERT WITNESSES CORROBORATED THE CHILD’S OUT-OF-COURT STATEMENTS IN THIS CHILD SEXUAL ABUSE CASE; THE PETITION, DISMISSED BY FAMILY COURT, REINSTATED AND A FINDING OF ABUSE MADE BY THE APPELLATE COURT (SECOND DEPT).
MANIFEST NECESSITY JUSTIFIED DECLARATION OF A MISTRIAL OVER DEFENDANT’S OBJECTION, COMPLAINANT IN THIS SEX OFFENSE TRIAL COULD NOT BE LOCATED (SECOND DEPT).
Proof of Value of Property For Purposes of Entering a Deficiency Judgment Not Sufficient
REPORTS BY THE DISTRICT ATTORNEY’S CONVICTION REVIEW UNIT (CRU) EXONERATING CONVICTED PERSONS ARE EXEMPT FROM DISCLOSURE UNDER THE FREEDOM OF INFORMATION LAW (FOIL); AN EXONERATED PERSON MAY WAIVE THE SEALING REQUIREMENT (CPL 160.50) AND CONSENT TO DISCLOSURE OF A REPORT; THE RELEASED REPORT HERE IS SUBJECT TO REDACTION DETERMINED IN AN IN CAMERA REVIEW BY A JUDGE (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 FELL AT HER NURSING HOME AND EMERGENCY PERSONNEL FOUND HER UNATTENDED... THE USE OF POST-DISCHARGE AFFIDAVITS FROM TWO JURORS, CLAIMING JUROR CONFUSION,...