King-Valls v. Mendel

Appellate Division of the Supreme Court of New York

King-Valls v. Mendel

303 A.D.2d 721, 756 N.Y.S.2d 875

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

DecidedMarch 31, 2003

StatusPublished

This text of 303 A.D.2d 721 (King-Valls v. Mendel) 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

King-Valls v. Mendel, 303 A.D.2d 721, 756 N.Y.S.2d 875 (N.Y. Ct. App. 2003).

Pincite

Opinion

—In an action to recover damages for personal injuries, etc., the plaintiffs appeal from an order of the Supreme Court, Queens County (LaTorella, J.), dated May 15, 2002, which denied their motion, inter alia, for an extension of time to file a note of issue and granted the defendant’s cross motion pursuant to CPLR 3216 to dismiss the complaint for failure to prosecute.

Ordered that the order is affirmed, with costs.

After the plaintiffs received a 90-day notice, they were required either to timely file a note of issue or move pursuant to CPLR 2004 before the default date for an extension of time within which to comply (see Aguilar v Knutson, 296 AD2d 562 [2002]). The plaintiffs did neither.

To avoid dismissal upon the defendant’s cross motion, the [722]*722plaintiffs were required to show a justifiable excuse for the delay and a meritorious cause of action (see CPLR 3216 [e]; Werbin v Locicero, 287 AD2d 617 [2001]). The plaintiffs failed to satisfy either prong of the test. Florio, J.P., S. Miller, Townes and Mastro, 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 plaintiffs appeal from an order of the Supreme Court, Queens County (LaTorella, J.), dated May 15, 2002, which denied their motion, inter alia, for an extension of time to file a note of issue and granted the defendant’s cross motion pursuant to CPLR 3216 to dismiss the complaint for failure to prosecute.

Ordered that the order is affirmed, with costs.

After the plaintiffs received a 90-day notice, they were required either to timely file a note of issue or move pursuant to CPLR 2004 before the default date for an extension of time within which to comply (see Aguilar v Knutson, 296 AD2d 562 [2002]). The plaintiffs did neither.

To avoid dismissal upon the defendant’s cross motion, the [722]*722plaintiffs were required to show a justifiable excuse for the delay and a meritorious cause of action (see CPLR 3216 [e]; Werbin v Locicero, 287 AD2d 617 [2001]). The plaintiffs failed to satisfy either prong of the test. Florio, J.P., S. Miller, Townes and Mastro, JJ., concur.

Cite This Page — Counsel Stack

Bluebook (online)

303 A.D.2d 721, 756 N.Y.S.2d 875, Counsel Stack Legal Research, https://law.counselstack.com/opinion/king-valls-v-mendel-nyappdiv-2003.

Opinion

Related

Cite This Page — Counsel Stack