Guy v. Hatsis

107 A.D.3d 671, 966 N.Y.S.2d 212
CourtAppellate Division of the Supreme Court of the State of New York
DecidedJune 5, 2013
StatusPublished
Cited by13 cases

This text of 107 A.D.3d 671 (Guy v. Hatsis) 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
Guy v. Hatsis, 107 A.D.3d 671, 966 N.Y.S.2d 212 (N.Y. Ct. App. 2013).

Opinion

In an action to recover damages for medical malpractice, the plaintiff appeals, as limited by her brief, from so much of an order of the Supreme Court, Nassau County (Bruno, J.), dated June 1, 2012, as denied her motion, in effect, to vacate the dismissal of the action pursuant to CPLR 3216, restore the action to the trial calendar, and extend the time to file a note of issue.

Ordered that the order is reversed insofar as appealed from, on the law, with costs, and the plaintiff’s motion, in effect, to vacate the dismissal of the action pursuant to CPLR 3216, restore the action to the trial calendar, and extend the time to file a note of issue is granted.

The certification order dated March 2, 2010, did not constitute a valid 90-day demand pursuant to CPLR 3216 because it directed the plaintiff to file a note of issue within 70 days, rather than 90 days, of the date of the order. Since the order failed to conform with a statutorily mandated condition precedent to dismissal of the action, the Supreme Court was not authorized to dismiss the action pursuant to CPLR 3216 (see Chrostowski v Chow, 37 AD3d 638, 639 [2007]; Wollman v Berliner, 29 AD3d 786 [2006]; Beepat v James, 303 AD2d 345, 346 [2003]). Although the plaintiff raises this issue for the first time on appeal, it involves a question of law that appears on the face of the rec[672]*672ord, and could not have been avoided if brought to the attention of the Supreme Court (see Michaels v Sunrise Bldg. & Remodeling, Inc., 65 AD3d 1021, 1024 [2009]; Chrostowski v Chow, 37 AD3d at 639; Beepat v James, 303 AD2d at 346). Accordingly, we reach the issue and determine that the plaintiffs motion, in effect, to vacate the dismissal of the action pursuant to CPLR 3216, restore the action to the trial calendar, and extend the time to file a note of issue should have been granted. Skelos, J.P., Chambers, Sgroi and Hinds-Radix, JJ., concur.

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

Related

U.S. Bank N.A. v. Sanchez
2022 NY Slip Op 06155 (Appellate Division of the Supreme Court of New York, 2022)
Deutsche Bank Natl. Trust Co. v. Rivera
2021 NY Slip Op 07306 (Appellate Division of the Supreme Court of New York, 2021)
Christiano v. Heatherwood House at Holbrook II, LLC
2020 NY Slip Op 3891 (Appellate Division of the Supreme Court of New York, 2020)
Deutsche Bank Natl. Trust Co. v. Vu
2018 NY Slip Op 8629 (Appellate Division of the Supreme Court of New York, 2018)
Colonial Sur. Co. v. Advanced Conservation Sys., Inc.
2018 NY Slip Op 5570 (Appellate Division of the Supreme Court of New York, 2018)
U.S. Bank National Ass'n v. Bassett
137 A.D.3d 1109 (Appellate Division of the Supreme Court of New York, 2016)
Pipinias v. J. Sackaris & Sons, Inc.
116 A.D.3d 749 (Appellate Division of the Supreme Court of New York, 2014)
Vargas v. Crown Container Co.
114 A.D.3d 762 (Appellate Division of the Supreme Court of New York, 2014)
Konig v. Word-Press.com
112 A.D.3d 936 (Appellate Division of the Supreme Court of New York, 2013)

Cite This Page — Counsel Stack

Bluebook (online)
107 A.D.3d 671, 966 N.Y.S.2d 212, Counsel Stack Legal Research, https://law.counselstack.com/opinion/guy-v-hatsis-nyappdiv-2013.