Dunefsky v. Petco Animal Supplies, Inc.

Appellate Division of the Supreme Court of New York

Dunefsky v. Petco Animal Supplies, Inc.

303 A.D.2d 620, 756 N.Y.S.2d 771, 2003 N.Y. App. Div. LEXIS 3123

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

DecidedMarch 24, 2003

StatusPublished

Cited by3 cases

This text of 303 A.D.2d 620 (Dunefsky v. Petco Animal Supplies, Inc.) 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

Dunefsky v. Petco Animal Supplies, Inc., 303 A.D.2d 620, 756 N.Y.S.2d 771, 2003 N.Y. App. Div. LEXIS 3123 (N.Y. Ct. App. 2003).

Pincite

Opinion

—In an action to recover damages for personal injuries, etc., the defendant Jorich Properties Company appeals from an order of the Supreme Court, Westchester County (Donovan, J.), dated September 24, 2002, which denied its motion to dismiss the action pursuant to CPLR 3012 (b) for failure to timely serve a complaint.

[621]*621Ordered that the order is reversed, on the law, with costs, the motion is granted, and the action is dismissed.

The Supreme Court erred in denying the appellant’s motion pursuant to CPLR 3012 (b) to dismiss the action. The plaintiffs failed to demonstrate a reasonable excuse for the delay, and the affidavit of merit did not establish a meritorious cause of action (see CPLR 3012 [d]; Snyder v Blinder, 230 AD2d 728 [1996]; Gibson v Victory Mem. Hosp., 221 AD2d 503 [1995]). Feuerstein, J.P., Goldstein, H. Miller and Rivera, 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 defendant Jorich Properties Company appeals from an order of the Supreme Court, Westchester County (Donovan, J.), dated September 24, 2002, which denied its motion to dismiss the action pursuant to CPLR 3012 (b) for failure to timely serve a complaint.

[621]*621Ordered that the order is reversed, on the law, with costs, the motion is granted, and the action is dismissed.

The Supreme Court erred in denying the appellant’s motion pursuant to CPLR 3012 (b) to dismiss the action. The plaintiffs failed to demonstrate a reasonable excuse for the delay, and the affidavit of merit did not establish a meritorious cause of action (see CPLR 3012 [d]; Snyder v Blinder, 230 AD2d 728 [1996]; Gibson v Victory Mem. Hosp., 221 AD2d 503 [1995]). Feuerstein, J.P., Goldstein, H. Miller and Rivera, JJ., concur.

Cite This Page — Counsel Stack

Bluebook (online)

303 A.D.2d 620, 756 N.Y.S.2d 771, 2003 N.Y. App. Div. LEXIS 3123, Counsel Stack Legal Research, https://law.counselstack.com/opinion/dunefsky-v-petco-animal-supplies-inc-nyappdiv-2003.

Opinion

Related

Cite This Page — Counsel Stack