Upon reading Plaintiff's Notice of Motion, Affirmation in Support, together with all supporting documents, Plaintiff's Motion ("Motion") pursuant to CPLR 306-b requesting an additional 90 days to serve the Summons and Complaint upon the Defendant, submitted without opposition, is denied for the reasons set forth below.

Plaintiff commenced the instant action on June 2, 2022, by filing a Summons and [*2]Complaint. This Court notes that section for the Defendant's address was left blank on the original Summons. Accordingly, September 30, 2022, was the deadline for service of process. On November 28, 2022, Plaintiff brought a motion ("Prior Motion") pursuant to CPLR 2307 to compel the New York City Fire Department ("FDNY") to disclose 1) the Defendant's home address; and 2) the address where the Defendant was employed by FDNY. A copy of the Summons and Complaint, which had been altered so that an address for the Defendant was superimposed on the Summons had been annexed to the Prior Motion as exhibit 1. Additionally, three altered/doctored summonses, along with three receipts from a process server describing unsuccessful attempts to serve the Defendant on separate occasions, were annexed to the Prior Motion as exhibit 3. Those receipts indicated that the attempts to serve the Defendant were made in July, September, and October of 2022.

By Decision and Order dated March 10, 2023, The Honorable Carol R. Feinman denied plaintiff's application. As pertinent, Judge Feinman opined as follows:

"This Court notes that the "Summons + Complaint originally served upon Defendant and thereafter filed with the Court on June 2, 2022 was patently defective as it failed to include an address for Defendant, and an Affidavit of Service had never been filed with the Court. Moreover, in what appears to be a defective/altered Summons and Complaint including Defendant's address, Plaintiff enclosed same, along with unfiled Affidavits of Service in the written application, evidencing that service of process was not able to be effectuated on three occasions."

Three days later, On March 13, 2023, Plaintiff moved for an Order extending the time to serve Defendant by 90 days. That motion was made returnable on May 30, 2023. Plaintiff withdrew the motion on May 30, 2023. That same day, Plaintiff brought the instant Motion seeking to extend its time to serve the Defendant by 90 days.

Under CPLR 306-b, Plaintiff was obligated to serve the Defendant with the Summons and Complaint no later than September 30, 2022. Yet, Plaintiff waited until May 11, 2023, to file a motion requesting an extension of time to serve the Defendant. However, Plaintiff then withdrew that motion only to bring a second motion seeking the same relief.

Plaintiff's counsel averred in his Affirmation in Support of the instant Motion that three attempts were made to serve the Defendant. Yet Plaintiff's counsel failed to explain when those attempts were made or when public records databases were queried to locate the Defendant. Based upon the exhibits attached to Plaintiff's prior motion seeking a subpoena, it appears that the last attempt to serve the Summons and Complaint was made in October of 2022. Here, Plaintiff has failed to establish good cause for an extension and this Court declines to grant an extension in the interest of justice (CPLR 306-b; see also Leader v Maroney, Ponzini, & Spencer, 97 AD2d 95 [2001]).

Accordingly, it is

ORDERED that Plaintiff's Motion (Motion Seq. #3) requesting an extension of time to serve the Summons and Complaint upon the Defendant is DENIED.

This constitutes the DECISION and ORDER of the Court.