Chase Home Fin., LLC v. Berger

Decision Date29 July 2020
Docket NumberIndex No. 10454/09,2018–11351
Citation185 A.D.3d 1000,128 N.Y.S.3d 577
Parties CHASE HOME FINANCE, LLC, Appellant, v. Abraham BERGER, Respondent, et al., Defendants.
CourtNew York Supreme Court — Appellate Division

Gross Polowy, LLC, Westbury, N.Y. (Stephen J. Vargas of counsel), for appellant.

Jeremy Rosenberg, Chestnut Ridge, NY, for respondent.

MARK C. DILLON, J.P., JEFFREY A. COHEN, ROBERT J. MILLER, BETSY BARROS, JJ.

DECISION & ORDER

In an action to foreclose a mortgage, the plaintiff appeals from an order of the Supreme Court, Rockland County (Rolf M. Thorsen, J.), dated July 11, 2018. The order denied the plaintiff's motion, inter alia, pursuant to CPLR 306–b to extend the time to serve the defendant Abraham Berger with the summons and complaint, and granted the motion of that defendant to vacate, among other things, an order of reference of the same court dated April 6, 2010, and a judgment of foreclosure and sale of the same court entered August 27, 2010, and pursuant to CPLR 3211(a) to dismiss the complaint insofar as asserted against him.

ORDERED that the order dated July 11, 2018, is affirmed, with costs.

In March 2004, Abraham Berger (hereinafter the defendant) borrowed the sum of $300,000 from the plaintiff's predecessor in interest. The loan was evidenced by a note and secured by a mortgage on certain real property located in Spring Valley. In October 2009, the plaintiff commenced this action against the defendant and others alleging, inter alia, that the defendant defaulted in his payment obligations under the note and mortgage.

In August 2010, the plaintiff obtained a default judgment of foreclosure and sale against the defendant. Four years later, the plaintiff attempted to enforce the judgment of foreclosure and sale by moving, inter alia, for leave to substitute the affidavit of merit. The Supreme Court granted the motion in an order dated February 20, 2015. Thereafter, the defendant moved to vacate, among other things, an order of reference dated April 6, 2010, and the judgment of foreclosure and sale, and pursuant to CPLR 3211(a) to dismiss the complaint insofar as asserted against him on the ground, inter alia, that he had never been served with the summons and complaint. In late 2017, the plaintiff moved, among other things, pursuant to CPLR 306–b to extend the time to serve the defendant with the summons and complaint.

After the plaintiff admitted that its original affidavit of service was erroneous and failed to produce its process server when the parties appeared for a hearing to determine the validity of service of process, the Supreme Court denied the plaintiff's motion and granted the defendant's motion, inter alia, to dismiss the complaint insofar as asserted against him. The plaintiff now appeals and argues, among other things, that the court should have granted its motion in the interest of justice.

CPLR 306–b provides, in relevant part, that "[s]ervice of the summons and complaint ... shall be made within one hundred twenty days after the commencement of the action." CPLR 306–b further provides that, "[i]f service is not made upon a defendant within the time provided in this section, the court, upon motion, shall dismiss the action without prejudice as to that defendant, or upon good cause shown or in the interest of justice, extend the time for service."

"An extension of time for service is a matter within the Court's discretion" ( Leader v. Maroney, Ponzini & Spencer , 97 N.Y.2d 95, 101, 736 N.Y.S.2d 291, 761 N.E.2d 1018 ). In applying the CPLR 306–b interest of justice standard, which is distinct from the good cause standard (see State of New York Mtge. Agency v. Braun , 182 A.D.3d 63, 119 N.Y.S.3d 522 ), the court must engage in " ‘a careful judicial...

To continue reading

Request your trial
5 cases
  • JPMorgan Chase Bank Nat'l Ass'n v. Kelleher
    • United States
    • New York Supreme Court — Appellate Division
    • 25 November 2020
    ...the appropriate factors and reasonably concluded that they did not militate in favor of plaintiff (see Chase Home Fin., LLC v. Berger , 185 A.D.3d 1000, 1002, 128 N.Y.S.3d 577 [2020] ; Wells Fargo Bank, N.A. v. Kaul , 180 A.D.3d 956, 958–959, 120 N.Y.S.3d 95 [2020] ; Deep v. Boies , 121 A.D......
  • Prof-2013-M4 Legal Title Trust 2015-1 v. Morales
    • United States
    • New York Supreme Court — Appellate Division
    • 14 December 2022
    ...failed to establish its entitlement to an extension of time to serve Cohn in the interest of justice (see Chase Home Fin., LLC v. Berger, 185 A.D.3d 1000, 1002, 128 N.Y.S.3d 577 ). The plaintiff failed to offer any reasonable excuse for its delay of over five years in moving to extend the t......
  • Nationstar Mortg., LLC v. Cohen
    • United States
    • New York Supreme Court — Appellate Division
    • 29 July 2020
  • Bowers v. Grier
    • United States
    • New York Supreme Court — Appellate Division
    • 29 July 2020
    ... ... grounds for disclaimer of liability or denial of coverage (see First Fin. Ins. Co. v. Jetco Contr. Corp., 1 N.Y.3d 64, 6869, 769 N.Y.S.2d 459, 801 ... ...
  • Request a trial to view additional results

VLEX uses login cookies to provide you with a better browsing experience. If you click on 'Accept' or continue browsing this site we consider that you accept our cookie policy. ACCEPT