Chmielnik v. Rosenberg

269 A.D.2d 555, 703 N.Y.S.2d 754, 2000 N.Y. App. Div. LEXIS 2199
CourtAppellate Division of the Supreme Court of the State of New York
DecidedFebruary 28, 2000
StatusPublished
Cited by13 cases

This text of 269 A.D.2d 555 (Chmielnik v. Rosenberg) 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
Chmielnik v. Rosenberg, 269 A.D.2d 555, 703 N.Y.S.2d 754, 2000 N.Y. App. Div. LEXIS 2199 (N.Y. Ct. App. 2000).

Opinion

—In an action to recover damages for medical malpractice, etc., the defendants separately appeal from an order of the Supreme Court, Westchester County (Donovan, J.), entered May 20, 1999, which granted the plaintiffs’ motion pursuant to CPLR 3012 (d) to compel them to accept an untimely complaint and denied their respective cross motions to dismiss the action insofar as asserted against them.

Ordered that the order is reversed, on the law, with costs, the motion is denied, the cross motions are granted, and the complaint is dismissed.

To avoid dismissal for failure to timely serve a complaint after a demand for the complaint has been made pursuant to CPLR 3012 (b), a plaintiff must demonstrate both a reasonable excuse for the delay in serving the complaint and a meritorious cause of action (see, Kel Mgt. Corp. v Rogers & Wells, 64 NY2d 904; Gibson v Victory Mem. Hosp., 221 AD2d 503). Here, the Supreme Court erred in granting the plaintiffs’ motion to compel the defendants to accept service of a late complaint and denying the defendants’ respective cross motions to dismiss, as the plaintiffs failed to demonstrate the existence of a meritorious cause of action (see, Holton v Sprain Brook Manor Nursing Home, 253 AD2d 852; Gibson v Victory Mem. Hosp., supra).

The plaintiffs’ remaining contentions are without merit. O’Brien, J. P., Altman, Friedmann, McGinity and Smith, JJ., concur.

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

Related

Perez v. Geico Insurance
105 A.D.3d 1025 (Appellate Division of the Supreme Court of New York, 2013)
Perez-Faringer v. Heilman
79 A.D.3d 837 (Appellate Division of the Supreme Court of New York, 2010)
Kordasiewicz v. BCC Products, Inc.
26 A.D.3d 853 (Appellate Division of the Supreme Court of New York, 2006)
Cowing v. Kenmore New Covenant Tabernacle of Tonawanda
19 A.D.3d 1094 (Appellate Division of the Supreme Court of New York, 2005)
Giordano v. Vanchieri & Perrier
16 A.D.3d 621 (Appellate Division of the Supreme Court of New York, 2005)
Gagnon v. J.S. International Shipping Corp.
8 A.D.3d 336 (Appellate Division of the Supreme Court of New York, 2004)
Brenner v. Cross County Shopping Center
308 A.D.2d 469 (Appellate Division of the Supreme Court of New York, 2003)
Balgley v. Cammarata
299 A.D.2d 432 (Appellate Division of the Supreme Court of New York, 2002)
Adams v. Alexander
291 A.D.2d 467 (Appellate Division of the Supreme Court of New York, 2002)
Dick v. Doral Greens Ltd. Partnership
289 A.D.2d 74 (Appellate Division of the Supreme Court of New York, 2001)
Savino v. Mobil Oil Corp.
284 A.D.2d 387 (Appellate Division of the Supreme Court of New York, 2001)
Meiselman v. Central Suffolk Hospital
273 A.D.2d 209 (Appellate Division of the Supreme Court of New York, 2000)

Cite This Page — Counsel Stack

Bluebook (online)
269 A.D.2d 555, 703 N.Y.S.2d 754, 2000 N.Y. App. Div. LEXIS 2199, Counsel Stack Legal Research, https://law.counselstack.com/opinion/chmielnik-v-rosenberg-nyappdiv-2000.