Leff v. Lemonia Restaurant Corp.

187 A.D.2d 252, 589 N.Y.S.2d 444, 1992 N.Y. App. Div. LEXIS 12579
CourtAppellate Division of the Supreme Court of the State of New York
DecidedNovember 5, 1992
StatusPublished
Cited by2 cases

This text of 187 A.D.2d 252 (Leff v. Lemonia Restaurant 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
Leff v. Lemonia Restaurant Corp., 187 A.D.2d 252, 589 N.Y.S.2d 444, 1992 N.Y. App. Div. LEXIS 12579 (N.Y. Ct. App. 1992).

Opinion

Order, Supreme Court, New York County (Stuart C. Cohen, J.), entered June 19, 1991, which denied plaintiff’s cross-motion for an extension of time to file a complaint with leave to renew within 30 days upon submission of an affidavit of merit, unanimously reversed, on the law, the facts and in the exercise of discretion, and the motion granted, without costs.

In order to avoid dismissal for failure to comply with the requirements of CPLR 3012 (b) for timely service of a complaint, a plaintiff must demonstrate a reasonable excuse for the delay and the meritorious nature of the claim (Kel Mgt. Corp. v Rogers & Wells, 64 NY2d 904). In this case, plaintiff satisfied those requirements. Plaintiff has shown that during the time which elapsed between October 1, 1990, to which date the parties had mutually agreed to extend plaintiff’s time to file a complaint following defendant’s initial demand, and February 27, 1991, when defendant moved to dismiss, the parties were actively involved in settlement negotiations (Siravakian v Efremidis, 49 AD2d 863). Moreover, plaintiff, an inspector with the New York City Department of Health, has adequately demonstrated the merit of his claim by presenting evidence that he was injured as a result of a fall on a flight of broken and defective steps in defendant’s restaurant. We further note that defendant has not shown that it has suffered any prejudice as a result of this delay. Under these circumstances, we find that plaintiff’s motion for leave to file a complaint should have been granted. Concur—Sullivan, J. P., Milonas, Ellerin and Kassal, JJ.

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

Related

Imperiale v. Prezioso
2004 NY Slip Op 24262 (New York Supreme Court, Bronx County, 2004)
Imperiale v. Prezioso
4 Misc. 3d 716 (New York Supreme Court, 2004)

Cite This Page — Counsel Stack

Bluebook (online)
187 A.D.2d 252, 589 N.Y.S.2d 444, 1992 N.Y. App. Div. LEXIS 12579, Counsel Stack Legal Research, https://law.counselstack.com/opinion/leff-v-lemonia-restaurant-corp-nyappdiv-1992.