Meiselman v. Central Suffolk Hospital

Appellate Division of the Supreme Court of New York

Meiselman v. Central Suffolk Hospital

273 A.D.2d 209, 709 N.Y.S.2d 436, 2000 N.Y. App. Div. LEXIS 6267

Appellate Division of the Supreme Court of the State of New York·Decided June 5, 2000·Published·Cited by 3 cases

Opinion

■ — In an action to recover damages for personal injuries, the plaintiff [210]*210appeals from an order of the Supreme Court, Suffolk County (Jones, J.), dated June 15, 1999, which granted the motion of the defendant Central Suffolk Hospital to dismiss the action insofar as asserted against it pursuant to CPLR 3012 (b) upon the plaintiff’s failure to serve a complaint.

Ordered that the order is affirmed, with costs.

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 (see, Chmielnik v Rosenberg, 269 AD2d 555; Quinn v Weneo Food Sys., Co., 269 AD2d 437; Culley v Morrison, 247 AD2d 356). The plaintiff failed to comply with either requirement. Bracken, J. P., Ritter, Altman and Feuerstein, 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, the plaintiff [210]*210appeals from an order of the Supreme Court, Suffolk County (Jones, J.), dated June 15, 1999, which granted the motion of the defendant Central Suffolk Hospital to dismiss the action insofar as asserted against it pursuant to CPLR 3012 (b) upon the plaintiff’s failure to serve a complaint.

Ordered that the order is affirmed, with costs.

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 (see, Chmielnik v Rosenberg, 269 AD2d 555; Quinn v Weneo Food Sys., Co., 269 AD2d 437; Culley v Morrison, 247 AD2d 356). The plaintiff failed to comply with either requirement. Bracken, J. P., Ritter, Altman and Feuerstein, JJ., concur.

Meiselman v. Central Suffolk Hospital, 273 A.D.2d 209, 709 N.Y.S.2d 436, 2000 N.Y. App. Div. LEXIS 6267 (N.Y. Ct. App. 2000).

Pincite

273 A.D.2d 209 (Meiselman v. Central Suffolk Hospital) — published by Counsel Stack Legal Research, free access to 12M+ legal documents.

Opinion

Related