GRACE v. SABAL (2025)

Order, Supreme Court, New York County (Leslie A. Stroth, J.), entered January 15, 2025, which denied defendants’ motion to dismiss the complaint for improper service and granted plaintiff 60 days to serve defendants, unanimously affirmed, without costs.  Order, same court and Justice, entered February 24, 2025, which found that plaintiff had previously effectuated alternate service as per a March 13, 2024 ex parte order, unanimously affirmed, without costs.  Appeal from ex parte order, same court (Jennifer G. Schecter, J.), entered March 13, 2024, which extended plaintiff's time to serve the complaint to July 10, 2024 and provided for alternate service, unanimously dismissed, without costs, as taken from a nonappealable order.

Under the circumstances presented, the court providently denied defendants’ cross-motion to dismiss the complaint for lack of personal jurisdiction over defendants, because plaintiff served defendants’ counsel, who represented defendants in connection with another action, by email dated March 21, 2024, pursuant to the ex parte order (see CPLR 308[5]).

The court need not reach the issue of whether the trial court properly exercised its discretion to (i) grant plaintiff additional time to serve defendants with process for good cause shown and in the interests of justice or (ii) permit alternative service upon defendants’ attorney in open court.  The record is clear that plaintiff effectuated service on defendants prior to the court's January 15, 2025 order.

We have considered defendants’ remaining arguments and find them unavailing.