Fasano v. J.C. Penney Corp.

Appellate Division of the Supreme Court of New York

Fasano v. J.C. Penney Corp.

59 A.D.3d 1102, 872 N.Y.S.2d 613

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

DecidedFebruary 6, 2009

DocketAppeal No. 1

StatusPublished

Cited by5 cases

This text of 59 A.D.3d 1102 (Fasano v. J.C. Penney Corp.) 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

Fasano v. J.C. Penney Corp., 59 A.D.3d 1102, 872 N.Y.S.2d 613 (N.Y. Ct. App. 2009).

Pincite

Opinion

Appeal from an order of the Supreme Court, Monroe County (Ann Marie Taddeo, J.), entered October 23, 2007 in a personal injury action. The order denied defendant’s motion to dismiss the action.

It is hereby ordered that the order so appealed from is unanimously reversed on the law without costs, the motion is granted and the action is dismissed.

Memorandum: Defendant appeals from an order denying its motion to dismiss the action based on the failure of plaintiff to comply with defendant’s demand for service of a complaint pursuant to CPLR 3012 (b). We agree with defendant that Supreme Court erred in denying the motion. “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” (Kordasiewicz v BCC Prods., Inc., 26 AD3d 853, 854 [2006]). Here, plaintiff failed to provide any excuse for the delay (see Moreno v Shell Oil Co., 67 AD2d 905 [1979]), and she failed to demonstrate that she has a meritorious cause of action (see Kordasiewicz, 26 AD3d at 855). Thus, “it was error, as a matter of law, not to grant the motion to dismiss without condition” (Kel Mgt. Corp. v Rogers & Wells, 64 NY2d 904, 905 [1985]; see Stolowitz v Mount Sinai Hosp., 60 NY2d 685 [1983]). Present—Scudder, PJ., Smith, Centra and Fahey, JJ.

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

Appeal from an order of the Supreme Court, Monroe County (Ann Marie Taddeo, J.), entered October 23, 2007 in a personal injury action. The order denied defendant’s motion to dismiss the action.

It is hereby ordered that the order so appealed from is unanimously reversed on the law without costs, the motion is granted and the action is dismissed.

Memorandum: Defendant appeals from an order denying its motion to dismiss the action based on the failure of plaintiff to comply with defendant’s demand for service of a complaint pursuant to CPLR 3012 (b). We agree with defendant that Supreme Court erred in denying the motion. “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” (Kordasiewicz v BCC Prods., Inc., 26 AD3d 853, 854 [2006]). Here, plaintiff failed to provide any excuse for the delay (see Moreno v Shell Oil Co., 67 AD2d 905 [1979]), and she failed to demonstrate that she has a meritorious cause of action (see Kordasiewicz, 26 AD3d at 855). Thus, “it was error, as a matter of law, not to grant the motion to dismiss without condition” (Kel Mgt. Corp. v Rogers & Wells, 64 NY2d 904, 905 [1985]; see Stolowitz v Mount Sinai Hosp., 60 NY2d 685 [1983]). Present—Scudder, PJ., Smith, Centra and Fahey, JJ.

Cite This Page — Counsel Stack

Bluebook (online)

59 A.D.3d 1102, 872 N.Y.S.2d 613, Counsel Stack Legal Research, https://law.counselstack.com/opinion/fasano-v-jc-penney-corp-nyappdiv-2009.

Opinion

Related

Cite This Page — Counsel Stack