interest of justice standard in New York

2026Under these circumstances, the plaintiff failed to establish its entitlement to an extension of time to serve the defendant under the interest of justice standard ( see Leader v Maroney, Ponzini & Spencer , 97 NY2d at 107 ; Wells Fargo Bank, NA v Barrella , 166 AD3d at 714).

2026Under 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" ( Leader v Maroney, Ponzini & Spencer , 97 NY2d at 105-106 ).

2025Agency v Braun , 182 AD3d 63, 66 ).

2025Agency v Braun , 182 AD3d at 66; Bumpus v New York City Tr.

2024The interest of justice standard is broader than the good cause standard (see Mead v. Singleman, 24 AD3d 1142, 1144 [3d Dept 2005]), as its factors also include the expiration of the statute of limitations, the meritorious nature of the action, the length of delay in service, the promptness of a request by the plaintiff for an extension, and prejudice to the defendant (Bumpus v. New York City Transit Authority, 66 AD3d at 31-32, supra).

2024The interest of justice standard is broader than the good cause standard (see Mead v. Singleman, 24 AD3d 1142, 1144 [3d Dept 2005]), as its factors also include the expiration of the statute of limitations, the meritorious nature of the action, the length of delay in service, the promptness of a request by the plaintiff for an extension, and prejudice to the defendant (Bumpus v. New York City Transit Authority, 66 AD3d at 31-32, supra).

2025"In considering the interest of justice standard, the court may consider diligence, or lack thereof, along [*2]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" ( U.S. Bank N.A. v Bindra , 217 AD3d 719, 720 [internal quotation marks omitted]; see Federal Natl.

2025"In considering the interest of justice standard, the court may consider diligence, or lack thereof, along [*2]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" ( U.S. Bank N.A. v Bindra , 217 AD3d 719, 720 [internal quotation marks omitted]; see Federal Natl.

2023The record demonstrates that the statute of limitations had not expired at the time of plaintiff's motion, plaintiff alleges potentially meritorious claims, there was a short delay in service, plaintiff promptly requested an extension, and defendant has not demonstrated that he would be prejudiced if the extension were granted ( see Henneberry v Borstein , 91 AD3d 493, 496 [1st Dept 2012]; Sutter v Reyes , 60 AD3d 448, 449 [1st Dept 2009]).

2023The interest of justice standard does not require diligent attempts at service as a threshold matter ( id. ; Matter of Jordan v City of New York , 38 AD3d 336, 339 [1st Dept 2007]).

2025"Th[is] more flexible . . . standard accommodates late service that might be due to mistake, confusion, or oversight, so long as there is no prejudice to the defendant" ( U.S. Bank N.A. v Bindra , 217 AD3d 719, 720 ). "[I]n deciding whether to grant a motion to extend the time for service in the interest of justice, the court must carefully analyze the factual setting of the case and a balancing of the competing interests presented by the parties" ( Wells Fargo Bank, N.A. v Kaul , 180 AD3d 956, 958 [internal quotation marks omitted]).

2020In considering the interest of justice standard, the court must analyze the factual setting and the parties' competing interests ( see Wells Fargo Bank, N.A. v Kaul , 180 AD3d at 958 ).

2025Under 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 defendant" ( Leader v Maroney, Ponzini & Spencer , 97 NY2d at 105-106 ; see Countrywide Home Loans, Inc. v Lyons , 219 AD3d at 1406 ; Gooden v New York City Health & Hosps.

2025While the plaintiff's lack of promptness in waiting three years to request an extension of time weighs against granting the extension, on a careful analysis of the factual setting of the case and a balancing of the competing interests the parties presented, an extension of time to serve the defendants with process was warranted in the interest of justice ( see Countrywide Home Loans, Inc. v Lyons , 219 AD3d 1404, 1406).

2023The record demonstrates that the statute of limitations had not expired at the time of plaintiff's motion, plaintiff alleges potentially meritorious claims, there was a short delay in service, plaintiff promptly requested an extension, and defendant has not demonstrated that he would be prejudiced if the extension were granted ( see Henneberry v Borstein , 91 AD3d 493, 496 [1st Dept 2012]; Sutter v Reyes , 60 AD3d 448, 449 [1st Dept 2009]).

2023The record demonstrates that the statute of limitations had not expired at the time of plaintiff's motion, plaintiff alleges potentially meritorious claims, there was a short delay in service, plaintiff promptly requested an extension, and defendant has not demonstrated that he would be prejudiced if the extension were granted ( see Henneberry v Borstein , 91 AD3d 493, 496 [1st Dept 2012]; Sutter v Reyes , 60 AD3d 448, 449 [1st Dept 2009]).

2023Dist ., 121 AD3d 1110, 1113 [1st Dept 2014], quoting Leader v Maroney, Ponzini & Spencer , 97 NY2d 95, 105 [2001]; see also Nicodene v Byblos Restaurant, Inc ., 98 AD3d 445 [1st Dept 2012]; Henneberry v Borstein , 91 AD3d 493 [1st Dept 2012]).

2023Dist. , 121 AD3d 1110, 1113 [1st Dept 2014], quoting Leader v Maroney, Ponzini & Spencer , 97 NY2d 95, 105 [2001]; see also Nicodene v Byblos Restaurant, Inc. , 98 AD3d 445 [1st Dept 2012]; Henneberry v Borstein , 91 AD3d 493 [1st Dept 2012]).

2023The interest of justice standard does not require diligent attempts at service as a threshold matter ( id .; Matter of Jordan v City of New York , 38 AD3d 336, 339 [1st Dept 2007]).

2023The interest of justice standard does not require diligent attempts at service as a threshold matter ( id. ; Matter of Jordan v City of New York , 38 AD3d 336, 339 [1st Dept 2007]).

2023Dist ., 121 AD3d 1110, 1113 [1st Dept 2014], quoting Leader v Maroney, Ponzini & Spencer , 97 NY2d 95, 105 [2001]; see also Nicodene v Byblos Restaurant, Inc ., 98 AD3d 445 [1st Dept 2012]; Henneberry v Borstein , 91 AD3d 493 [1st Dept 2012]).

2023Dist. , 121 AD3d 1110, 1113 [1st Dept 2014], quoting Leader v Maroney, Ponzini & Spencer , 97 NY2d 95, 105 [2001]; see also Nicodene v Byblos Restaurant, Inc. , 98 AD3d 445 [1st Dept 2012]; Henneberry v Borstein , 91 AD3d 493 [1st Dept 2012]).

2017State Comptroller, 88 AD3d 1049, 1050 [2011], quoting Leader v Maroney, Ponzini & Spencer, 97 NY2d at 105 ).

2017State Comptroller, 88 AD3d 1049, 1050 [2011], quoting Leader v Maroney, Ponzini & Spencer, 97 NY2d at 105 ).

2025Unlike an extension request premised on good cause, a plaintiff need not establish reasonably diligent efforts at service as a threshold matter'" ( Pierre v Grueso , 219 AD3d at 1536 , quoting Leader v Maroney, Ponzini & Spencer , 97 NY2d at 104 ). "'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 exte

2023"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'" ( Wells Fargo Bank, N.A. v Fameux , 201 AD3d at 1014 , quoting State of New York Mtge.

2026Contrary to the plaintiff's contention, it failed to demonstrate good cause to extend the time to serve Mark Barasch with the summons and complaint ( see Citibank, N.A. v Martinez , 197 AD3d 1086, 1087 ).

2025Contrary to the plaintiff's contention, it failed to demonstrate good cause to extend the time to serve Singer ( see id. ; Citibank, N.A. v Martinez , 197 AD3d 1086, 1087).

2025"Under 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'" ( Wells Fargo Bank, N.A. v Gewirtz , 204 AD3d at 1072 , quoting Leader v Maroney, Ponzini & Spencer , 97 NY2d at 105-106 ).

2025"Under 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'" ( Wells Fargo Bank, N.A. v Gewirtz , 204 AD3d at 1072, quoting Leader v Maroney, Ponzini & Spencer , 97 NY2d at 105-106).

2025"Pursuant to CPLR 306-b, a court may, in its discretion, grant a motion for an [*2]extension of the time for service 'upon good cause shown or in the interest of justice'" ( Pierre v Grueso , 219 AD3d 1535, 1535 , citing Wells Fargo Bank, N.A. v Boakye-Yiadom , 213 AD3d 976, 977 ; see Leader v Maroney, Ponzini & Spencer , 97 NY2d 95, 104 ). "'Good cause' and 'interest of justice' are two separate and independent statutory standards" ( BAC Home Loans Servicing, L.P. v Rogener , 171 AD3d 996 , 998). "'The interest of justice standard requires a careful judicial analysis of the factual setting of

2023Under 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" ( Wells Fargo Bank, N.A. v Boakye-Yiadom , 213 AD3d 976, 977 [internal quotation marks omitted]).

2023Under 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" ( Turner v Sideris , 209 AD3d 915, 916 [internal quotation marks omitted]).

2023Under 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" ( Leader v Maroney, Ponzini & Spencer , 97 NY2d at 105-106 ; Turner [*2]v Sideris , 209 AD3d 915, 916 ).

2025"If good cause for an extension is not established, the court must consider the broader interest of justice standard of CPLR 306-b" ( Wells Fargo Bank, N.A. v Ciafone , 188 AD3d 957 , 958; see Fink v Dollar Mart , 186 AD3d 1197, 1198 ).

2025Here, the plaintiff failed to demonstrate reasonable diligence in attempting service upon the defendant, and, therefore, it was not entitled to an extension for good cause ( see Wells Fargo Bank, N.A. v Fameux , 201 AD3d at 1014; Krasa v Dial 7 Car & Limousine Serv., Inc. , 147 AD3d 744, 745).

2025Here, the plaintiff failed to demonstrate reasonable diligence in attempting service upon the defendant, and, therefore, it was not entitled to an extension for good cause ( see Wells Fargo Bank, N.A. v Fameux , 201 AD3d at 1014; Krasa v Dial 7 Car & Limousine Serv., Inc. , 147 AD3d 744, 745).

2024In voting to affirm the judgment, one Justice of the three-Justice Appellate Division majority panel did not reach the merits of defendant’s interest-of-justice challenge to the excessiveness of his sentence based on that Justice’s conclusion that the appeal waiver was valid (see generally People v Callahan, 80 NY2d 273, 284-285 [1992]).