Greenpoint Mtge. Funding, Inc. v Congregation Chasiday Sq. of Boro Park

[*1] Greenpoint Mtge. Funding, Inc. v Congregation Chasiday Sq. of Boro Park 2012 NY Slip Op 50186(U) Decided on January 25, 2012 Supreme Court, Kings County Hinds-Radix, J. Published by New York State Law Reporting Bureau pursuant to Judiciary Law § 431. This opinion is uncorrected and will not be published in the printed Official Reports.

Decided on January 25, 2012
Supreme Court, Kings County

Greenpoint Mortgage Funding, Inc., Plaintiff,

against

Congregation Chasiday Square of Boro Park et al., Defendants.



33039/09



Jeffrey A. Kosterich & Assoc.

Attorney for Plaintiff's Assignee, Waterfall Victoria Jemcap REO

2010-01 LLC

68 Main Street

Tuckahoe, NY 10707

Sylvia O. Hinds-Radix, J.

Upon the foregoing papers, the motion by Waterfall Victoria Jemcap REO 2010-01, LLC (Waterfall), the assignee of plaintiff Greenpoint Mortgage Funding, Inc., for an order pursuant to CPLR 306-b, extending its time to serve the summons and complaint upon defendant Congregation Chasiday Square of Boro Park, nunc pro tunc, is denied. A plaintiff moving to extend the time for service of the summons and complaint pursuant to CPLR 306-b is required to show either good cause for its failure to serve the defendant with the summons and complaint within 120 days after filing, or that an extension of time to effect service should be granted in the interest of justice (Redman v South Island Orthopaedic Gp., P.C., 78 AD3d 1147, 1148 [2010]; Meusa v BMW Financial Serv., 32 AD3d 830, 831 [*2][2006]). Here, movant has failed to make such a showing. In particular, the lack of timely service of the summons and complaint upon defendant Congregation was caused by plaintiff Greenpoint's attempt to serve the defendant at the wrong address, which does not constitute good cause. Further, movant has not demonstrated that the interest of justice weigh in favor of an extension of time for service. In this regard, the original service of the summons and complaint was attempted nearly two years ago. Further, Greenpoint, which commenced this action, is no longer a party in interest in this action, having assigned its rights to Waterfall.

Accordingly, the motion is denied.

E N T E R,

J. S. C.