In a motor vehicle action issued within the limitation period but not served on the defendants until well after expiry of the service period, the plaintiff sought substituted service on the insurer and an extension of time for service, while the defendants sought dismissal for delay.
The court found the plaintiff's service efforts wholly lacking and criticized counsel's dilatory conduct, but held the defendants had not established sufficient specific prejudice to their ability to defend the action.
Relying on appellate authority emphasizing prejudice over mere passage of time, the court extended time for service on strict terms, refused immediate substituted service on the insurer, denied the cross-motion to dismiss, and imposed a peremptory litigation timetable against the plaintiff.
