A New York appellate court has ruled on a medical malpractice case involving Faseha Majid and Geno Manna, clarifying issues related to service of process. The decision, made on October 14, 2026, affects how plaintiffs can serve defendants in future cases, particularly when service is contested. This ruling is significant for individuals pursuing claims against medical professionals.

The case, Majid v. Manna (Docket No. 2024-13043), began when Faseha Majid filed a lawsuit against Geno Manna and Garden OB/GYN in January 2021. The dispute arose when Majid claimed that Manna failed to provide adequate medical care, leading to damages. However, the case took a turn when Manna contested the way he was served with the lawsuit.

Initially, Majid's legal team claimed to have served Manna on February 4, 2021, by delivering the summons and complaint to a person identified as a “Co-Worker.” The following day, they mailed a copy of the documents to Manna. Despite this, Manna did not respond to the complaint, prompting the court to grant a default judgment against him in March 2022. The situation escalated when Manna’s legal team sought to vacate this judgment, arguing that the service was invalid.

The appeal reached the Appellate Division of the Supreme Court of New York, where the judges reviewed the arguments presented by both sides. Manna’s attorneys from Aaronson Rappaport Feinstein Deutsch, LLP, contended that the service was improper because he was no longer employed by Garden OB/GYN at the time of the alleged service. In contrast, Majid's attorneys from The Law Offices of Joseph M. Lichtenstein, P.C. argued for the validity of the service and requested an extension to serve Manna properly.

The court ruled on several key points regarding the service of process. They noted that while a process server's affidavit usually establishes a presumption of proper service, Manna's team successfully rebutted this presumption with evidence showing that he was not employed at the time of service. The judges highlighted that Manna had not appeared or answered the complaint, and thus, the court had to address the issue of personal jurisdiction.

The court stated, "an extension of time to serve the summons and complaint under CPLR 306-b in the interest of justice is available where, as here, service is timely made within the 120-day period but is subsequently found to have been defective."

Ultimately, the court granted Majid’s request for an extension to serve Manna but denied the request for alternative service methods. The judges emphasized that there was no evidence showing that serving Manna through ordinary means was impractical. They modified the previous ruling by denying the alternative service request while upholding the extension to serve the complaint.

This ruling has significant implications for future cases involving medical malpractice and service of process. It underscores the importance of proper service and the potential consequences of failing to adhere to legal requirements. The decision may influence how plaintiffs approach serving defendants, particularly in cases where employment status or location may complicate service.

Moving forward, this ruling clarifies that while courts may grant extensions for serving defendants when initial attempts are found to be defective, they will not permit alternative service methods without substantial justification. This sets a precedent that may impact how similar cases are handled in New York.

As for what’s next, it remains unclear if Manna will appeal this ruling. The court’s decision does not preclude further legal action, and the parties involved may continue to litigate the case based on the court’s findings. There is no information available about any related cases pending in connection with this ruling.