Rosen v. S&M Kings Borough Corp.

2025 NY Slip Op 03350 · Appellate Division, Second Judicial Department · June 4, 2025 · No. Index No. 66536/21

Summary

This New York Appellate Division decision addresses a defendant's appeal from an order denying its motion to vacate a default judgment and granting the plaintiff's application to deem service of process timely nunc pro tunc. The court held that the plaintiff demonstrated reasonable diligence and good cause to warrant an extension of time for service under CPLR 306-b. Consequently, the appellate court granted leave to appeal and affirmed the lower court's order, with costs.

Court
Appellate Division, Second Judicial Department
Writing for the Court
Colleen D. Duffy, J.P.; Robert J. Miller; Helen Voutsinas; Donna-Marie E. Golia, JJ.
Jurisdiction
New York
Decision date
June 4, 2025
Docket number
Index No. 66536/21
Procedural posture
Appeal from order of the Supreme Court, Westchester County denying defendant's motion to vacate judgment and granting plaintiff's application to deem service timely under CPLR 306-b.
Precedential value
published
Parties
S&M Kings Borough Corp. v. Alexandra Rosen
Disposition
affirmed

Topics

civil procedureappellate procedureservice of process

Practice areas

civil procedure

Questions Presented

  1. Whether the trial court abused its discretion in granting plaintiff's application to deem service timely under CPLR 306-b and in denying defendant's motion to vacate the default judgment under CPLR 5015(a)(4).

Holdings

  1. The court properly exercised its discretion and granted the plaintiff's application to deem service timely, finding good cause shown through reasonable diligence, and affirmed the order denying the defendant's motion to vacate the judgment.

Key quotations

"An extension of time for service is a matter within the court's discretion" (Leader v. Maroney, Ponzini & Spencer, 97 NY2d at 101).

Factual background

Plaintiff Alexandra Rosen sued S&M Kings Borough Corp. for personal injuries. The defendant failed to appear or answer, resulting in a default judgment on February 9, 2023. Defendant moved to vacate that judgment and dismiss the complaint under CPLR 5015(a)(4). Plaintiff moved to deem service of the summons and complaint timely under CPLR 306-b.

Procedural history

Defendant appealed the trial court's order denying its CPLR 5015(a)(4) motion to vacate a default judgment and granting plaintiff's CPLR 306-b motion to deem service of the summons and complaint timely, nunc pro tunc.

Court Document

Open PDF
Loading document…