On December 27, 2023, the Second Department issued a decision in Bhatara v. Kolaj, 2023 NY Slip Op. 06721, granting a plaintiff additional time to serve a defendant, explaining:
Generally, service of a summons and complaint must be made within 120 days after the commencement of the action. Pursuant to CPLR 306-b, a court may, in the exercise of discretion, grant an extension of time within which to effect service for good cause shown or in the interest of justice. To establish good cause, a plaintiff must demonstrate reasonable diligence in attempting service. The more flexible interest of justice standard accommodates late service that might be due to mistake, confusion, or oversight, so long as there is no prejudice to the defendant. In considering the interest of justice standard, ‘the court may consider diligence, or lack thereof, along with any other relevant factor in making its determination, including expiration of the Statute of Limitations, the meritorious nature of the cause of action, the length of delay in service, the promptness of a plaintiff’s request for the extension of time, and prejudice to the defendant. The determination of whether to grant an extension of time in the interest of justice is within the discretion of the motion court.
Here, the Supreme Court providently exercised its discretion in granting, in the interest of justice, the plaintiffs’ cross-motion, in effect, pursuant to CPLR 306-b to extend the time to serve the amended complaint upon the additional defendants. The plaintiffs demonstrated that the action was timely commenced, that service was timely attempted and was believed by the plaintiffs to have been made within 120 days after the commencement of the action but was subsequently found to be defective, that the statute of limitations had expired by the time the plaintiffs filed their cross-motion, and that an extension would not prejudice the additional defendants. Further, the plaintiffs established that they had potentially meritorious causes of action. Moreover, under the circumstances of this case, the length of delay was not particularly egregious. Accordingly, the court properly granted the plaintiffs’ cross-motion, in effect, pursuant to CPLR 306-b to extend the time to serve the amended complaint upon the additional defendants, and properly, in effect, denied the additional defendants’ motion pursuant to CPLR 3211(a)(8) and 306-b to dismiss the amended complaint insofar as asserted against them.
(Internal quotations and citation omitted).