Karter v. Young

Appellate Division of the Supreme Court of New York

Karter v. Young

117 A.D.2d 1003, 499 N.Y.S.2d 547, 1986 N.Y. App. Div. LEXIS 63657

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

DecidedFebruary 21, 1986

StatusPublished

Cited by1 cases

This text of 117 A.D.2d 1003 (Karter v. Young) 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

Karter v. Young, 117 A.D.2d 1003, 499 N.Y.S.2d 547, 1986 N.Y. App. Div. LEXIS 63657 (N.Y. Ct. App. 1986).

Pincite

Opinion

—Order unanimously reversed, without costs, motion granted and complaint dismissed. Memorandum: Defendant’s motion to dismiss the complaint should have been granted. The affidavit of defense counsel in support of the motion established that a 90-day demand pursuant to CPLR 3216 had been served on plaintiffs’ counsel by certified mail and that plaintiffs had failed to file a note of issue within the statutory period. In opposing the motion plaintiffs merely stated that there had "been no unreasonable delay.” In order to defeat the motion plaintiffs were required to show "justifiable excuse for the delay and a good and meritorious cause of action” (CPLR 3216 [e]). Inasmuch as they showed neither, the motion should have been granted (see, Sortino v Fisher, 20 AD2d 25). (Appeal from order of Supreme Court, Erie County, Sedita, J.—dismiss action.) Present—Denman, J. P., Boomer, Green, O’Donnell and Schnepp, JJ.

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

—Order unanimously reversed, without costs, motion granted and complaint dismissed. Memorandum: Defendant’s motion to dismiss the complaint should have been granted. The affidavit of defense counsel in support of the motion established that a 90-day demand pursuant to CPLR 3216 had been served on plaintiffs’ counsel by certified mail and that plaintiffs had failed to file a note of issue within the statutory period. In opposing the motion plaintiffs merely stated that there had "been no unreasonable delay.” In order to defeat the motion plaintiffs were required to show "justifiable excuse for the delay and a good and meritorious cause of action” (CPLR 3216 [e]). Inasmuch as they showed neither, the motion should have been granted (see, Sortino v Fisher, 20 AD2d 25). (Appeal from order of Supreme Court, Erie County, Sedita, J.—dismiss action.) Present—Denman, J. P., Boomer, Green, O’Donnell and Schnepp, JJ.

Cite This Page — Counsel Stack

Bluebook (online)

117 A.D.2d 1003, 499 N.Y.S.2d 547, 1986 N.Y. App. Div. LEXIS 63657, Counsel Stack Legal Research, https://law.counselstack.com/opinion/karter-v-young-nyappdiv-1986.

Opinion

Related

Cite This Page — Counsel Stack