Justice Randy Sue Marber
Schimmel sought to amend the caption to add parties, to discontinue the action against YouTube and extend the time to serve an amended complaint. Plaintiffs asserted a defamation action claiming that as a result of defamatory videos posted on YouTube by defendants, they suffered damages. Counsel sought to voluntarily discontinue the action against YouTube. The court noted as service on YouTube was never effectuated, the motion to discontinue was denied and dismissed. Further, plaintiffs sought to amend the caption to defendants John and Jane Doe under CPLR 1024. The court noted that to utilize the statute, plaintiffs needed to show an exercise of due diligence in identifying defendants by name yet were unable. It note that §1024 was intertwined with §306-b, finding plaintiffs failed to establish good cause or that extending the 120-day service provision under §306-b would be in the interest of justice. Also, the court found plaintiffs failed to demonstrate any diligent effort to effectuate service nor any promptness in pursuing such request. Thus, it denied plaintiffs’ motion seeking to extend their time to serve an amended complaint. It also noted plaintiffs failed to show a reasonable excuse for its delay in moving to amend.
