Adams v. Alexander

Appellate Division of the Supreme Court of New York

Adams v. Alexander

291 A.D.2d 467, 738 N.Y.S.2d 217, 2002 N.Y. App. Div. LEXIS 1922

CourtAppellate Division of the Supreme Court of the State of New York

DecidedFebruary 19, 2002

StatusPublished

Cited by3 cases

This text of 291 A.D.2d 467 (Adams v. Alexander) is published on Counsel Stack Legal Research, covering Appellate Division of the Supreme Court of the State of New York primary law. Counsel Stack provides free access to over 12 million legal documents including statutes, case law, regulations, and constitutions.

Bluebook

Adams v. Alexander, 291 A.D.2d 467, 738 N.Y.S.2d 217, 2002 N.Y. App. Div. LEXIS 1922 (N.Y. Ct. App. 2002).

Pincite

Opinion

—In an action to recover damages for personal injuries, etc., the plaintiffs appeal from a judgment of the Supreme Court, Westchester County (Coppola, J.), dated March 16, 2001, which, upon the granting of the defendants’ motion pursuant to CPLR 3012 (b) to dismiss the action for failure to serve a complaint, dismissed the complaint.

Ordered that the judgment is affirmed, with costs.

To successfully oppose a motion pursuant to CPLR 3012 (b) to dismiss an action for failure to serve a complaint, a plaintiff must demonstrate, among other things, a reasonable excuse for failing to serve a timely complaint (see, Chmielnik v Rosenberg, 269 AD2d 555; Bravo v New York City Hous. Auth., 253 AD2d 510; Chiaffarano v Winston, 234 AD2d 329). What constitutes a reasonable excuse for a default lies within the sound discretion of the trial court (see, Roussodimou v Zafiriadis, 238 AD2d 568; Bardales v Blades, 191 AD2d 667). The Supreme Court providently exercised its discretion in determining that the excuses offered by the plaintiffs for the delay in serving the complaint were not reasonable. Prudenti, P.J., Florio, S. Miller, Friedmann and Adams, JJ., concur.

Free access — add to your briefcase to read the full text and ask questions with AI

—In an action to recover damages for personal injuries, etc., the plaintiffs appeal from a judgment of the Supreme Court, Westchester County (Coppola, J.), dated March 16, 2001, which, upon the granting of the defendants’ motion pursuant to CPLR 3012 (b) to dismiss the action for failure to serve a complaint, dismissed the complaint.

Ordered that the judgment is affirmed, with costs.

To successfully oppose a motion pursuant to CPLR 3012 (b) to dismiss an action for failure to serve a complaint, a plaintiff must demonstrate, among other things, a reasonable excuse for failing to serve a timely complaint (see, Chmielnik v Rosenberg, 269 AD2d 555; Bravo v New York City Hous. Auth., 253 AD2d 510; Chiaffarano v Winston, 234 AD2d 329). What constitutes a reasonable excuse for a default lies within the sound discretion of the trial court (see, Roussodimou v Zafiriadis, 238 AD2d 568; Bardales v Blades, 191 AD2d 667). The Supreme Court providently exercised its discretion in determining that the excuses offered by the plaintiffs for the delay in serving the complaint were not reasonable. Prudenti, P.J., Florio, S. Miller, Friedmann and Adams, JJ., concur.

Cite This Page — Counsel Stack

Bluebook (online)

291 A.D.2d 467, 738 N.Y.S.2d 217, 2002 N.Y. App. Div. LEXIS 1922, Counsel Stack Legal Research, https://law.counselstack.com/opinion/adams-v-alexander-nyappdiv-2002.

Opinion

Related

Cite This Page — Counsel Stack