Suarez v Rankin
Categories
Attorneys and Parties
Brief Summary
Civil procedure in a personal injury motor vehicle action, specifically whether a plaintiff who failed to complete service on a defendant within the statutory time should receive an extension to serve.
The Supreme Court, Queens County, denied the defendant's motion under CPLR 3211(a)(8) [rule permitting dismissal for lack of personal jurisdiction based on improper service] to dismiss the complaint against him and granted the plaintiff's motion under CPLR 306-b [rule allowing an extension of time for service upon good cause shown or in the interest of justice] to extend the time to serve.
The Appellate Division reversed the order insofar as appealed from, granted dismissal of the complaint against Keenan Rankin, and denied the plaintiff's request for additional time to serve him.
The plaintiff did not show good cause because she failed to demonstrate reasonably diligent efforts to serve the defendant, and she also failed to justify relief in the interest of justice because she waited about two years after filing to seek an extension, offered no reasonable excuse for the delay, and did not establish a potentially meritorious cause of action.
Background
The plaintiff commenced this personal injury action on April 3, 2023, alleging that she was injured in an October 25, 2021 motor vehicle accident in Queens County when her vehicle was struck by a vehicle towing a flatbed trailer operated by Keenan Rankin. The plaintiff delivered the summons and complaint to the Secretary of State, but the mailed copy to the defendant was returned undelivered. The plaintiff then failed to complete service under Vehicle and Traffic Law § 253 [statute governing service on certain motor vehicle operators through the Secretary of State and requiring follow-up mailing] and did not serve the defendant within 120 days as required by CPLR 306-b [rule allowing an extension of time for service upon good cause shown or in the interest of justice]. In January 2025, the defendant moved to dismiss for lack of personal jurisdiction, and in April 2025, the plaintiff cross-moved for more time to serve.
Lower Court Decision
The Supreme Court, Queens County, ruled for the plaintiff on the service issue. It denied the defendant's motion to dismiss under CPLR 3211(a)(8) and granted the plaintiff's motion under CPLR 306-b to extend the time to serve the summons and complaint on Rankin.
Appellate Division Reversal
The Appellate Division held that the Supreme Court improvidently exercised its discretion. The plaintiff did not establish good cause because she failed to show reasonable diligence in attempting service. The court further held that an extension was not warranted in the interest of justice, emphasizing the plaintiff's lack of diligence, her failure to seek relief until roughly two years after filing, the absence of a reasonable excuse for the delay, and her failure to show a potentially meritorious claim. The appellate court therefore reversed, granted the defendant's CPLR 3211(a)(8) motion, and denied the plaintiff's CPLR 306-b motion.
Legal Significance
This decision reinforces that relief under CPLR 306-b is not automatic when service is defective or untimely. A plaintiff must either show diligent efforts amounting to good cause or persuade the court that the interest of justice supports an extension based on factors such as diligence, timeliness of the request, prejudice, the statute of limitations, and the apparent merit of the claim. A long unexplained delay and failure to demonstrate merit can defeat a request for additional time even in a personal injury action.
If service is not properly completed within 120 days, a plaintiff should act promptly to correct the defect or seek an extension. Waiting years to request relief, without a reasonable excuse and without showing a potentially meritorious claim, risks dismissal for lack of personal jurisdiction.