Summary
This Appellate Division decision reviews a Supreme Court order granting the plaintiff's cross-motion to extend the time to serve the summons and complaint under CPLR 306-b, while simultaneously denying the defendant's motion to dismiss under CPLR 3211(a)(8). The court found that the plaintiff demonstrated reasonable diligence and good cause for the delay caused by an incorrect address listed with the Secretary of State, and properly exercised its discretion in the interest of justice given the potentially meritorious labor law claims. Accordingly, the appellate court affirmed the lower court's order with costs.
Topics
Practice areas
Questions Presented
- Whether the trial court erred in denying J & N Development, LLC's motion to dismiss the complaint under CPLR 3211(a)(8).
- Whether the trial court properly exercised its discretion in granting the plaintiff's cross‑motion for an extension of time to serve under CPLR 306‑b.
Holdings
- The appellate court affirmed the trial court's denial of the motion to dismiss, finding no error.
- The appellate court affirmed the grant of the extension, concluding the plaintiff showed good cause and the court acted within its discretionary authority.
Key quotations
“The determination of whether to grant an extension of time in the interest of justice is within the discretion of the motion court.”
Factual background
The plaintiff was injured while performing marble installation at a property owned by J & N Development, LLC. Service of process on J & N was initially misdirected, resulting in a delayed service of 168 days after commencement of the action. The plaintiff later sought an extension of time to serve the summons and complaint.
Procedural history
The plaintiff filed suit on November 20, 2017. Service on J & N was delayed until May 7, 2018. A default judgment was entered in March 2023. J & N moved to vacate the judgment and to dismiss the complaint under CPLR 3211(a)(8). The trial court denied the dismissal motion and granted the plaintiff's cross‑motion for an extension of time. J & N appealed the order.