Emigrant Bank v. Estate of Robinson
Cases that cite this one
28 later published cases cite this decision. The 25 that cite it most often are listed here.
- HSBC Bank USA, N.A. v. Tarek Oqlah (Appellate Division of the Supreme Court of New York 2018)
- Bank United, FSB v. Verbitsky (Appellate Division of the Supreme Court of New York 2018)
- Rivera v. Michaelsen (Appellate Division of the Supreme Court of New York 2024)
- Wells Fargo Bank, N.A. v. Boakye-Yiadom (Appellate Division of the Supreme Court of New York 2023)
- Wells Fargo Bank, N.A. v. Figueroa (Appellate Division of the Supreme Court of New York 2019)
- Wilmington Sav. Fund Socy., FSB v. James (Appellate Division of the Supreme Court of New York 2019)
- Kapitus Servicing, Inc. v. Blackmon (New York Supreme Court, New York County 2025)
- Kane v. Mount Pleasant Cent. Sch. Dist. (Appellate Division of the Supreme Court of New York 2025)
- Deutsche Bank Natl. Trust Co. v. Birnbaum (New York Supreme Court, Kings County 2024)
- HSBC Bank USA, N.A. v. Labin (Appellate Division of the Supreme Court of New York 2024)
- Countrywide Home Loans, Inc. v. Lyons (Appellate Division of the Supreme Court of New York 2023)
- BAC Home Loans Servicing, L.P. v. Tessler (Appellate Division of the Supreme Court of New York 2022)
- Feng Li v. Peng (Appellate Division of the Supreme Court of New York 2021)
- State of New York Mtge. Agency v. Braun (Appellate Division of the Supreme Court of New York 2020)
- BAC Home Loans Servicing, L.P. v. Herbst (Appellate Division of the Supreme Court of New York 2020)
- Poyser v. JCF Trucking Corp. (Appellate Division of the Supreme Court of New York 2020)
- JPMorgan Chase Bank, N.A. v. Grinkorn (Appellate Division of the Supreme Court of New York 2019)
- Deutsche Bank Natl. Trust Co. v. Campbell (Appellate Division of the Supreme Court of New York 2019)
- Williams v. St. John's Episcopal Hosp. (Appellate Division of the Supreme Court of New York 2019)
- Mighty v. Deshommes (Appellate Division of the Supreme Court of New York 2019)
- Holbeck v. Sosa-Berrios (Appellate Division of the Supreme Court of New York 2018)
- Jung Hun Cho v. Bovasso (Appellate Division of the Supreme Court of New York 2018)
- A.K. v. T.K. (Appellate Division of the Supreme Court of New York 2017)
- JP Morgan Chase Bank, National Ass'n v. Venture (Appellate Division of the Supreme Court of New York 2017)
- JP Morgan Chase Bank, National Ass'n v. Venture (Appellate Division of the Supreme Court of New York 2017)
This list shows which later cases cite this one. It does not say how they treated it, and no review of that has been done. Not a substitute for Shepard’s or KeyCite — verify before relying.
Opinion
*1085 In an action to foreclose a mortgage, the defendants Estate of Maurice Robinson and Ricardo Robinson, as Administrator of the Estate of Maurice Robinson, appeal from an order of the Supreme Court, Kings County (Silber, J.), dated November 13, 2014, which granted the plaintiffs motion pursuant to CPLR 306-b for an extension of time within which to effect service upon them, and denied their cross motion pursuant to CPLR 3211 (a) and CPLR 306-b to dismiss the complaint insofar as asserted against them.
Ordered that the order is affirmed, with costs.
Subsequent to commencing this mortgage foreclosure action, the plaintiff made two successive motions for extensions of time within which to effect service upon the defendants Estate of Maurice Robinson and Ricardo Robinson, as administrator of the Estate of Maurice Robinson (hereinafter together the Robinson defendants), pursuant to CPLR 306-b. The Robinson defendants opposed each motion for an extension, and cross-moved pursuant to CPLR 3211 (a) and CPLR 306-b to dismiss the complaint insofar as asserted against them in response to the plaintiffs second motion. The Supreme Court granted the plaintiffs motion for a second extension and denied the Robinson defendants’ cross motion. The Robinson defendants appeal.
Pursuant to CPLR 306-b, a court may, in the exercise of its sound discretion, grant a motion for an extension of time within which to effect service for good cause shown or in the interest of justice (see Leader v Maroney, Ponzini & Spencer, 97 NY2d 95 [2001]; Bumpus v New York City Tr. Auth., 66 AD3d 26 [2009]). Good cause requires a showing of reasonable diligence in attempting to effect service (see Bumpus v New York City Tr. Auth., 66 AD3d at 31-32), while the broader interest of justice ground allows the court to balance a number of relevant factors in reaching its determination (see Leader v Maroney, Ponzini & Spencer, 97 NY2d at 105-106).
Contrary to the Robinson defendants’ contentions, the plaintiff’s submission of detailed affidavits of due diligence, affidavits of attempted service, and evidence of various records searches demonstrated its substantial efforts to locate and serve the Robinson defendants, and established the requisite reasonable diligence to warrant the granting of an extension for good cause (see e.g. Henneherry v Borstein, 91 AD3d 493, 496 [2012]). In any event, the plaintiff also satisfied the interest of justice ground for an extension by demonstrating its *1086 diligent prosecution of the action, the Robinson defendants’ actual notice of the controversy, the existence of a potentially meritorious claim, and the lack of any prejudice to the Robinson defendants as a consequence of the delay in service (see e.g. Rivera v Rodriguez, 142 AD3d 657, 658 [2016]; Jhang v Nassau Univ. Med. Ctr., 140 AD3d 1018, 1019-1020 [2016]; Kuwano v Linares, 133 AD3d 573, 574 [2015]; Dhuler v ELRAC, Inc., 118 AD3d 937, 939 [2014]; Bumpus v New York City Tr. Auth., 66 AD3d at 36-37).
Accordingly, the Supreme Court providently exercised its discretion in granting the plaintiff’s motion for a second extension and in denying the Robinson defendants’ cross motion to dismiss the complaint insofar as asserted against them.
Case-law data current through December 31, 2025. Source: CourtListener bulk data.