Moray v. Koven & Krause

Appellate Division of the Supreme Court of New York

Moray v. Koven & Krause

62 A.D.3d 765, 877 N.Y.S.2d 905

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

DecidedMay 12, 2009

StatusPublished

Cited by3 cases

This text of 62 A.D.3d 765 (Moray v. Koven & Krause) 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

Moray v. Koven & Krause, 62 A.D.3d 765, 877 N.Y.S.2d 905 (N.Y. Ct. App. 2009).

Pincite

Opinion

In an action, inter alia, to recover damages for legal malpractice, the plaintiff appeals from an order of the Supreme Court, Westchester County (Smith, J.), dated June 19, 2008, which granted the defendant’s motion pursuant to CPLR 3012 (b) to dismiss the action for failure to timely serve a complaint.

Ordered that the order is affirmed, with costs.

To avoid dismissal for failure to serve a complaint after a demand therefor has been served pursuant to CPLR 3012 (b), a plaintiff must demonstrate both a reasonable excuse for the delay in serving the complaint and the existence of a meritorious cause of action (see Leibowitz v Glickman, 50 AD3d 643 [2008]; Tutora v Schirripa, 1 AD3d 349, 350 [2003]; Balgley v Cammarata, 299 AD2d 432 [2002]). Here, the plaintiff failed to show the existence of a meritorious cause of action. Accordingly, the Supreme Court did not improvidently exercise its discretion in granting the defendant’s motion to dismiss the action.

The plaintiff’s contention that the action was stayed pursuant to CPLR 321 (c) is raised for the first time on appeal and, thus, is not properly before this Court (see Telmark, Inc. v Mills, 199 AD2d 579, 580 [1993]; see also KPSD Mineola, Inc. v Jahn, 57 AD3d 853 [2008]; Triantafillopoulos v Sala Corp., 39 AD3d 740 [2007]). Rivera, J.P., Dillon, Covello, Eng and Hall, JJ., concur.

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

In an action, inter alia, to recover damages for legal malpractice, the plaintiff appeals from an order of the Supreme Court, Westchester County (Smith, J.), dated June 19, 2008, which granted the defendant’s motion pursuant to CPLR 3012 (b) to dismiss the action for failure to timely serve a complaint.

Ordered that the order is affirmed, with costs.

To avoid dismissal for failure to serve a complaint after a demand therefor has been served pursuant to CPLR 3012 (b), a plaintiff must demonstrate both a reasonable excuse for the delay in serving the complaint and the existence of a meritorious cause of action (see Leibowitz v Glickman, 50 AD3d 643 [2008]; Tutora v Schirripa, 1 AD3d 349, 350 [2003]; Balgley v Cammarata, 299 AD2d 432 [2002]). Here, the plaintiff failed to show the existence of a meritorious cause of action. Accordingly, the Supreme Court did not improvidently exercise its discretion in granting the defendant’s motion to dismiss the action.

The plaintiff’s contention that the action was stayed pursuant to CPLR 321 (c) is raised for the first time on appeal and, thus, is not properly before this Court (see Telmark, Inc. v Mills, 199 AD2d 579, 580 [1993]; see also KPSD Mineola, Inc. v Jahn, 57 AD3d 853 [2008]; Triantafillopoulos v Sala Corp., 39 AD3d 740 [2007]). Rivera, J.P., Dillon, Covello, Eng and Hall, JJ., concur.

Cite This Page — Counsel Stack

Bluebook (online)

62 A.D.3d 765, 877 N.Y.S.2d 905, Counsel Stack Legal Research, https://law.counselstack.com/opinion/moray-v-koven-krause-nyappdiv-2009.

Opinion

Related

Cite This Page — Counsel Stack