Summary
This New York Appellate Division decision reviews a lower court's denial of a mortgage lender's motion to extend the time to serve a defendant with a summons and complaint pursuant to CPLR 306-b. The court affirmed the denial, finding that the plaintiff failed to demonstrate good cause or establish that an extension was in the interest of justice due to a lack of reasonably diligent efforts to effectuate proper service. The matter will proceed to a hearing on the validity of service before any further extension can be considered.
Topics
Practice areas
Questions Presented
- Whether the plaintiff demonstrated good cause under CPLR 306‑b to obtain an extension of time to serve the summons and complaint
- Whether the interest‑of‑justice standard under CPLR 306‑b was satisfied
Holdings
- The plaintiff failed to establish good cause because it did not show reasonable diligence in attempting service; therefore the motion for an extension of time was properly denied.
- The plaintiff also failed to satisfy the interest‑of‑justice factors, so the court was correct in denying the extension.
Key quotations
“Pursuant to CPLR 306‑b, a court may, in the exercise of discretion, grant a motion for an extension of time to effect service for "good cause shown" or "in the interest of justice".” (at 1)
Factual background
21st Mortgage Corp filed a foreclosure action against Ruby Akter in August 2014, alleging a mortgage on a two‑family dwelling in Queens. The defendant was served on August 18, 2014. After the defendant failed to appear, a judgment of foreclosure and sale was entered in July 2018. The defendant later moved to vacate that judgment and to dismiss the complaint for lack of personal jurisdiction, prompting a hearing on the validity of service. The plaintiff subsequently moved to extend the time to serve and to cancel the hearing; the motion was denied.
Procedural history
The plaintiff commenced a foreclosure action in August 2014 and served the defendant on August 18, 2014. The defendant later moved to vacate the foreclosure judgment and to dismiss for lack of personal jurisdiction. After a hearing was scheduled to determine service validity, the plaintiff moved to extend the time to serve and cancel the hearing. The Supreme Court, Queens County denied the motion on September 30, 2022. The plaintiff appealed.