Upon the foregoing papers numbered below and submitted by Plaintiff for an Order excusing the late filing of the Affidavit of Service nunc pro tunc; entering default judgment against Defendant; and for costs and disbursements of this action, is determined as provided herein.

Plaintiff moves for an order excusing the late filing of the Affidavit of Service nunc pro tunc and directing entry of a default judgment against Defendant for failure to answer or otherwise appear in this action. No opposition has been submitted despite proper service.

Plaintiff commenced this action by filing the Summons and Complaint on September 28, 2022. Thereafter, service was effectuated pursuant to CPLR 308(2), with service on a person of suitable age and discretion on December 5, 2022, and the follow up mailing on December 9, 2022.

When service is made pursuant to CPLR 308(2), proof of such service shall be filed with the Clerk of the Court designated in the summons within 20 days of either such delivery or mailing, whichever is effected later, and service shall be complete 10 days after such filing. CPLR 308(2). In the case at bar, proof of service should have been filed with the court on or before December 29, 2022. However, same was not filed until January 4, 2023. Accordingly, service was not completed in conformity with the statute and Defendant's time to answer never began to run (see Pipinias v J. Sackaris & Sons, Inc., et al, 116 AD3d 749 [2d Dept 2014]).

Plaintiff now moves for an Order permitting late filing of the proof of service. The court notes that "... [t]he purpose of requiring filing of proof of service, along with the 10—day grace period, pertains solely to the time within which a defendant must answer, and does not relate to the jurisdiction acquired by service of the summons" (Palma v Apatow, 230 AD3d 1244, [2d [*2]Dept 2024], citing Tulino v Hiller, P.C., 202 AD3d 1132 at 1136 [2d Dept 2022]). The Plaintiff's "failure to timely file proof of service [wa]s a mere procedural irregularity, not a jurisdictional defect" (id. at 1246). In light of Defendant's failure to oppose this motion, thus failing to show prejudice, it is

ORDERED that Plaintiff's application to permit late filing of proof of service nunc pro tunc is granted (see Khan v Hernandez, 122 AD3d 802 [2d Dept 2014]; and it is further

ORDERED that the time for Defendant to answer the complaint in this matter is extended to 30 days after service of a copy of this Decision and Order with Notice of Entry (id.; see also Pipinias, supra; K.J., etc., et al v. Longo, et al, 208 AD3d 651 [2d Dept 2022]); and it is further

ORDERED that Plaintiff's application for a default judgment, along with costs and disbursements of this action is denied as Defendant's time to answer has not yet begun to run (id.; see Khan, supra); and it is further

ORDERED, that Plaintiff shall serve a copy of this Decision and Order with Notice of Entry upon Defendant by certified mail and by regular mail within 10 days from the date of this Order.

Any relief not specifically addressed herein is denied.

This constitutes the Decision and Order of the Court.