Mirabile v. Good Samaritan Hospital & Medical Center

Appellate Division of the Supreme Court of New York

Mirabile v. Good Samaritan Hospital & Medical Center

306 A.D.2d 389, 761 N.Y.S.2d 483

Appellate Division of the Supreme Court of the State of New York·Decided June 16, 2003·Published

Opinion

—In an action to recover damages for medical malpractice, etc., the defendants appeal from an order of the Supreme Court, Suffolk County (Doyle, J.), dated May 30, 2002, which denied their separate motions pursuant to CPLR 3216 to dismiss the complaint insofar as asserted against them for failure to prosecute.

Ordered that the order is affirmed, with one bill of costs.

The defendant Good Samaritan Hospital and Medical Center failed to prove that it served the plaintiffs with a written demand requesting them to resume prosecution of the action and to serve and file a note of issue within 90 days. As such, the Supreme Court properly denied its motion to dismiss pursuant to CPLR 3216 (see CPLR 3216 [b]).

Although the defendant Anthony Baratía demonstrated that he properly served the plaintiffs with a 90-day notice pursuant to CPLR 3216, the Supreme Court properly denied his motion. Where a party is served with a 90-day notice pursuant to CPLR 3216 and fails to comply with the notice by filing a note of issue or by moving, before the default date, either to vacate the notice or extend the 90-day period, that party must demonstrate both a justifiable excuse for the delay in properly responding to the 90-day notice and the existence of a meritorious cause of action (see Allone v University Hosp. of N.Y. Univ. Med. Ctr., 249 AD2d 430 [1998]; Papadopoulas v R.B. Supply Corp., 152 AD2d 552 [1989]). The plaintiff demonstrated a justifiable excuse for the delay and a meritorious cause of action. 'Florio, J.P., S. Miller, Friedmann, Adams and Rivera, 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 medical malpractice, etc., the defendants appeal from an order of the Supreme Court, Suffolk County (Doyle, J.), dated May 30, 2002, which denied their separate motions pursuant to CPLR 3216 to dismiss the complaint insofar as asserted against them for failure to prosecute.

Ordered that the order is affirmed, with one bill of costs.

The defendant Good Samaritan Hospital and Medical Center failed to prove that it served the plaintiffs with a written demand requesting them to resume prosecution of the action and to serve and file a note of issue within 90 days. As such, the Supreme Court properly denied its motion to dismiss pursuant to CPLR 3216 (see CPLR 3216 [b]).

Although the defendant Anthony Baratía demonstrated that he properly served the plaintiffs with a 90-day notice pursuant to CPLR 3216, the Supreme Court properly denied his motion. Where a party is served with a 90-day notice pursuant to CPLR 3216 and fails to comply with the notice by filing a note of issue or by moving, before the default date, either to vacate the notice or extend the 90-day period, that party must demonstrate both a justifiable excuse for the delay in properly responding to the 90-day notice and the existence of a meritorious cause of action (see Allone v University Hosp. of N.Y. Univ. Med. Ctr., 249 AD2d 430 [1998]; Papadopoulas v R.B. Supply Corp., 152 AD2d 552 [1989]). The plaintiff demonstrated a justifiable excuse for the delay and a meritorious cause of action. 'Florio, J.P., S. Miller, Friedmann, Adams and Rivera, JJ., concur.

Mirabile v. Good Samaritan Hospital & Medical Center, 306 A.D.2d 389, 761 N.Y.S.2d 483 (N.Y. Ct. App. 2003).

Pincite

306 A.D.2d 389 (Mirabile v. Good Samaritan Hospital & Medical Center) — published by Counsel Stack Legal Research, free access to 12M+ legal documents.

Opinion

Related