Key Takeaway
Third Department rules CPLR 2004 allows courts to extend order to show cause service deadlines retroactively, establishing new precedent for tardy service extensions.
This article is part of our ongoing procedural issues coverage, with 187 published articles analyzing procedural issues issues across New York State. Attorney Jason Tenenbaum brings 24+ years of hands-on experience to this analysis, drawing from his work on more than 1,000 appeals, over 100,000 no-fault cases, and recovery of over $100 million for clients throughout Nassau County, Suffolk County, Queens, Brooklyn, Manhattan, and the Bronx. For personalized legal advice about how these principles apply to your specific situation, contact our Long Island office at (516) 750-0595 for a free consultation.
Looking for the complete rule? This post analyzes one CPLR 2004 decision. For the full practitioner’s guide to CPLR § 2004 — the good-cause standard, leading cases, and practice pointers — see NY CPLR 2004: Extensions of Time — The New York Practitioner’s Guide.
Matter of State of New York v Robert C., 2014 NY Slip Op 00257 (3d Dept. 2014)
It is common maxim that the failure to comply the service provisions of an order to show cause is deemed a jurisdictional defect. Well, the Third Department (in the context of an MHL Article 10 proceeding) feels otherwise.
“Although the order to show cause required service upon respondent and his assigned counsel by February 7, 2008, service was only effected upon counsel by that date. Respondent was not served until February 11, 2008”
Free Consultation · No Fee Unless We Win
Does this apply to your situation?
Every case is different. Get a free, confidential case review from an experienced attorney who can tell you exactly where you stand.
“An extension was available under another statute, however. CPLR 2004 provides that “a court may extend the time fixed by any statute, rule or order for doing any act, upon such terms as may be just and upon good cause shown, whether the application for extension is made before or after the expiration of the time fixed” (CPLR 2004 ). Although petitioner did not file a written motion for an extension of the time for service, petitioner did request that the original service be deemed sufficient. Treating that request as an application for an extension, and noting the factors relied upon by Supreme Court (Hall Jr., J.) as well as the meritorious nature of the petition, under CPLR 2004 it appears that good cause was shown for an extension of the time for service included in the order to show cause. Although it is unclear whether Supreme Court granted an extension on that basis, we grant such an extension and deem the petition timely served nunc pro tunc”
Related Articles
- Combating litigation delay tactics in New York No-Fault Insurance cases
- Understanding the single motion rule and statute of limitations requirements
- How form defects can be corrected through reply procedures
- When parties get multiple chances to correct procedural mistakes
- New York No-Fault Insurance Law
Legal Update (February 2026): Since this 2014 decision, CPLR 2004 and related service provisions may have been subject to amendments or judicial interpretation updates. Additionally, procedural requirements for Mental Hygiene Law Article 10 proceedings and order to show cause service protocols may have evolved through subsequent case law or rule modifications. Practitioners should verify current CPLR 2004 provisions and applicable service requirements before relying on this precedent.
Legal Context
Why This Matters for Your Case
New York law is among the most complex and nuanced in the country, with distinct procedural rules, substantive doctrines, and court systems that differ significantly from other jurisdictions. The Civil Practice Law and Rules (CPLR) governs every stage of civil litigation, from service of process through trial and appeal. The Appellate Division, Appellate Term, and Court of Appeals create a rich and ever-evolving body of case law that practitioners must follow.
Attorney Jason Tenenbaum has practiced across these areas for over 24 years, writing more than 1,000 appellate briefs and publishing over 2,353 legal articles that attorneys and clients rely on for guidance. The analysis in this article reflects real courtroom experience — from motion practice in Civil Court and Supreme Court to oral arguments before the Appellate Division — and a deep understanding of how New York courts actually apply the law in practice.
About This Topic
Procedural Issues in New York Litigation
New York civil procedure governs every stage of litigation — from pleading requirements and service of process to motion practice, discovery deadlines, and trial procedures. The CPLR creates strict procedural rules that can make or break a case regardless of the underlying merits. These articles examine the procedural pitfalls, timing requirements, and strategic considerations that practitioners face in New York state courts, with a particular focus on no-fault insurance and personal injury practice.
187 published articles in Procedural Issues
Keep Reading
More Procedural Issues Analysis
How to Talk to a Judge in New York: What to Say, What to Avoid, and How to Present Yourself
Address the judge as 'Your Honor,' stand when you speak, wait to be recognized, and keep answers short and honest. A Long Island trial lawyer explains.
Feb 24, 2026
CPLR § 2106 Amendment Eliminates Affidavit Notarization Requirement: What This Means for New York Litigation
New York's CPLR 2106 permits affirmations in place of many sworn documents. See the 2024 and 2025 changes, exceptions, and historical case notes.
Feb 18, 2026
Supplemental affirmation on a DJ case acceptable and res judicata mandates dismissal of complaint
Court rules supplemental affirmation acceptable in DJ case and res judicata mandates dismissal of no-fault complaint after prior declaratory judgment ruling.
Aug 29, 2014
Electronic signatures unconditionally accepted
New York First Department rules electronic signatures have same validity as handwritten signatures under State Technology Law § 304(2) for legal affidavits and court documents.
Jun 27, 2012
Plaintiff given a second chance to correct the form of his papers
Ferrara allowed corrected medical proof on renewal in 2010. Compare the former affirmation rule with current CPLR 2106 and later renewal decisions.
Aug 19, 2010
Priority of payment disputes must be adjudicated through Ins. Law 5105 intercompany arbitration
Understanding priority of payment disputes in NY no-fault insurance.
Jul 1, 2009Was this article helpful?
Disclaimer: This article is published by the Law Office of Jason Tenenbaum, P.C. for informational and educational purposes only. It does not constitute legal advice, and no attorney-client relationship is formed by reading this content. The legal principles discussed may not apply to your specific situation, and the law may have changed since this article was last updated.
New York law varies by jurisdiction — court decisions in one Appellate Division department may not be followed in another, and local court rules in Nassau County Supreme Court differ from those in Suffolk County Supreme Court, Kings County Civil Court, or Queens County Supreme Court. The Appellate Division, Second Department (which covers Long Island, Brooklyn, Queens, and Staten Island) and the Appellate Term (which hears appeals from lower courts) each have distinct procedural requirements and precedents that affect litigation strategy.
If you need legal help with a procedural issues matter, contact our office at (516) 750-0595 for a free consultation. We serve clients throughout Long Island (Huntington, Babylon, Islip, Brookhaven, Smithtown, Riverhead, Southampton, East Hampton), Nassau County (Hempstead, Garden City, Mineola, Great Neck, Manhasset, Freeport, Long Beach, Rockville Centre, Valley Stream, Westbury, Hicksville, Massapequa), Suffolk County (Hauppauge, Deer Park, Bay Shore, Central Islip, Patchogue, Brentwood), Queens, Brooklyn, Manhattan, the Bronx, Staten Island, and Westchester County. Prior results do not guarantee a similar outcome.
