Culley v. Morrison

Appellate Division of the Supreme Court of New York

Culley v. Morrison

247 A.D.2d 356, 667 N.Y.S.2d 940, 1998 N.Y. App. Div. LEXIS 858

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

DecidedFebruary 2, 1998

StatusPublished

Cited by8 cases

This text of 247 A.D.2d 356 (Culley v. Morrison) 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

Culley v. Morrison, 247 A.D.2d 356, 667 N.Y.S.2d 940, 1998 N.Y. App. Div. LEXIS 858 (N.Y. Ct. App. 1998).

Pincite

Opinion

In an action, inter alia, to recover damages for medical malpractice and assault, (1) the defendant appeals, as limited by his brief, from so much of an order of the Supreme Court, Putnam County (Hickman, J.), dated March 7, 1997, as denied his motion pursuant to CPLR 3012 (b) to dismiss the complaint, and (2) the plaintiff cross-appeals, as limited by her brief, from so much of the same order as denied her cross motion for a judgment of default upon the defendant’s failure to appear or answer the complaint.

Ordered that the order is modified by deleting the provision thereof denying the defendant’s motion to dismiss the complaint, and substituting therefor a provision granting the defendant’s motion; as so modified, the order is affirmed insofar as appealed and cross-appealed from, with costs payable to the defendant.

Contrary to the plaintiff’s contention, the defendant’s appearance in this action by service of a notice of appearance on October 21, 1996, was equivalent to personal service of the summons upon him (see, CPLR 320 [b]; 3211 [e]). Thus, the plaintiff was required to serve the complaint within 20 days after the defendant served a written demand for the complaint on October 21, 1996 (see, CPLR 3012 [b]).

In opposing the defendant’s motion to dismiss the complaint for failure to serve a timely complaint pursuant to CPLR 3012 (b), the plaintiff was required to demonstrate a meritorious cause of action and a reasonable excuse for the delay (see, Chiaffarano v Winston, 234 AD2d 329). The plaintiff failed to submit an affidavit of merit by an expert (see, Perez v Long Is. Jewish-Hillside Med. Ctr., 173 AD2d 530; Brice v Westchester Community Health Plan, 143 AD2d 170) or to proffer any excuse for the delay. Therefore, the defendant’s motion to dismiss the complaint should have been granted.

Mangano, P. J., Copertino, Joy, Florio and Luciano, JJ., concur.

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

In an action, inter alia, to recover damages for medical malpractice and assault, (1) the defendant appeals, as limited by his brief, from so much of an order of the Supreme Court, Putnam County (Hickman, J.), dated March 7, 1997, as denied his motion pursuant to CPLR 3012 (b) to dismiss the complaint, and (2) the plaintiff cross-appeals, as limited by her brief, from so much of the same order as denied her cross motion for a judgment of default upon the defendant’s failure to appear or answer the complaint.

Ordered that the order is modified by deleting the provision thereof denying the defendant’s motion to dismiss the complaint, and substituting therefor a provision granting the defendant’s motion; as so modified, the order is affirmed insofar as appealed and cross-appealed from, with costs payable to the defendant.

Contrary to the plaintiff’s contention, the defendant’s appearance in this action by service of a notice of appearance on October 21, 1996, was equivalent to personal service of the summons upon him (see, CPLR 320 [b]; 3211 [e]). Thus, the plaintiff was required to serve the complaint within 20 days after the defendant served a written demand for the complaint on October 21, 1996 (see, CPLR 3012 [b]).

In opposing the defendant’s motion to dismiss the complaint for failure to serve a timely complaint pursuant to CPLR 3012 (b), the plaintiff was required to demonstrate a meritorious cause of action and a reasonable excuse for the delay (see, Chiaffarano v Winston, 234 AD2d 329). The plaintiff failed to submit an affidavit of merit by an expert (see, Perez v Long Is. Jewish-Hillside Med. Ctr., 173 AD2d 530; Brice v Westchester Community Health Plan, 143 AD2d 170) or to proffer any excuse for the delay. Therefore, the defendant’s motion to dismiss the complaint should have been granted.

Mangano, P. J., Copertino, Joy, Florio and Luciano, JJ., concur.

Cite This Page — Counsel Stack

Bluebook (online)

247 A.D.2d 356, 667 N.Y.S.2d 940, 1998 N.Y. App. Div. LEXIS 858, Counsel Stack Legal Research, https://law.counselstack.com/opinion/culley-v-morrison-nyappdiv-1998.

Opinion

Related

Cite This Page — Counsel Stack