Summary
This Appellate Division, Second Department decision addresses a mortgage foreclosure action where the defendant appealed an order denying her motion for summary judgment based on lack of personal jurisdiction. The court affirmed the lower court's ruling, which granted the plaintiff's cross-motion to extend the time to serve the summons and complaint pursuant to CPLR 306-b. Relying on the "interest of justice" standard, the appellate court found that the plaintiff demonstrated timely commencement, no prejudice to the defendant, and actual notice of the action, thereby justifying the extension despite delays.
Topics
Practice areas
Questions Presented
- Whether the Supreme Court erred in denying the defendant's motion for summary judgment dismissing the complaint for lack of personal jurisdiction.
- Whether the Supreme Court erred in granting the plaintiff's cross‑motion under CPLR 306(b) to extend the time to serve the summons and complaint.
Holdings
- The appellate division affirmed the lower court's denial of the summary‑judgment motion, finding that the plaintiff had timely commenced the action, the statute of limitations had expired, there was no identifiable prejudice to the defendant, and the action was potentially meritorious.
- The appellate division affirmed the grant of the extension, holding that the trial court properly exercised its discretion in the interest of justice.
Key quotations
“Contrary to the defendant's contention, under the circumstances of this case, the Supreme Court providently exercised its discretion in granting that branch of the plaintiff's cross‑motion which was pursuant to CPLR 306(b) to extend the time to serve the defendant with the summons and complaint and properly denied the defendant's motion for summary judgment dismissing the complaint insofar as asserted against her for lack of personal jurisdiction.” (at 1)
Factual background
Citimortgage commenced a mortgage‑foreclosure action in 2013 against Yehudit Benyacob. The defendant failed to appear, leading to a default judgment of foreclosure on May 4, 2016. The defendant later moved to vacate the judgment and to obtain an extension of time to serve the summons; the plaintiff also moved for an extension. The Supreme Court granted both motions in 2019, denied the defendant's summary‑judgment motion in 2022, and again denied it while granting the plaintiff's extension motion in 2023.
Procedural history
Plaintiff filed a foreclosure action in 2013. Defendant defaulted, resulting in a judgment of foreclosure. Subsequent motions were filed under CPLR 5015(a)(4) and CPLR 306(b). The Supreme Court denied the defendant's summary‑judgment motion and granted the plaintiff's extension motion on March 29, 2023. The defendant appealed.