Waring v Town of Hempstead Industrial Development Agency
Attorneys and Parties
Brief Summary
Whether the plaintiff should receive an extension of time to serve under New York CPLR 306-b [allows the court to extend the time to serve the summons and complaint for good cause or in the interest of justice] after disputed service and expiration of the statute of limitations.
Denied the plaintiff’s motion to extend time to serve under CPLR 306-b.
The denial of the CPLR 306-b extension; the Appellate Division granted the extension.
The action was timely commenced; the plaintiff timely attempted service; he promptly sought an extension once service was challenged; the statute of limitations had expired by the time of the motion; the defendant had actual notice via a timely notice of claim; and the plaintiff showed a potentially meritorious claim through his verified complaint and notice of claim, warranting an interest-of-justice extension.
Background
Plaintiff alleged he slipped and fell on a wet hallway floor at his apartment building in September 2020. He commenced suit in December 2021 against the Town of Hempstead Industrial Development Agency, alleged to own/lease/manage the premises, and also named the Town of Hempstead (later discontinued). The defendant did not appear, prompting a motion for default. The defendant opposed, asserting it was never served. The court ordered a hearing on service, after which the plaintiff moved to extend time to serve under CPLR 306-b.
Lower Court Decision
Supreme Court, Nassau County, denied the plaintiff’s CPLR 306-b motion to extend time to serve the summons and complaint.
Appellate Division Reversal
Reversed insofar as appealed from; the Appellate Division exercised its discretion and granted the CPLR 306-b extension in the interest of justice, citing timely commencement, timely service attempts, prompt motion upon challenge, expiration of the statute of limitations, the defendant’s actual notice via a notice of claim, and a potentially meritorious claim.
Legal Significance
Reaffirms that the CPLR 306-b interest-of-justice standard is flexible and may warrant an extension even absent good cause where the action was timely, the plaintiff acted diligently, the statute of limitations has run, the defendant had actual notice (e.g., through a notice of claim), and the plaintiff has a potentially meritorious cause of action.
When service is disputed but the defendant had actual notice and the statute of limitations has expired, courts may grant a CPLR 306-b extension in the interest of justice if the plaintiff acted diligently and shows a potentially meritorious claim.