Ovadia v. Duffy

Appellate Division of the Supreme Court of New York

Ovadia v. Duffy

210 A.D.2d 386, 620 N.Y.S.2d 971, 1994 N.Y. App. Div. LEXIS 12950

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

DecidedDecember 19, 1994

StatusPublished

This text of 210 A.D.2d 386 (Ovadia v. Duffy) 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

Ovadia v. Duffy, 210 A.D.2d 386, 620 N.Y.S.2d 971, 1994 N.Y. App. Div. LEXIS 12950 (N.Y. Ct. App. 1994).

Pincite

Opinion

—In an action to recover damages for personal injuries, etc., the defendants appeal from an order of the Supreme Court, Nassau County (Gold-stein, J.), entered June 23, 1993, which denied their motion pursuant to CPLR 3012 (b) to dismiss the action for failure to timely serve a complaint.

Ordered that the order is reversed, on the law, with costs, the motion is granted, and the complaint is dismissed.

In order to defeat the motion for dismissal, the plaintiffs should have first offered a reasonable excuse for failing to timely serve a complaint and should have shown that they had a meritorious action by furnishing a sworn statement from a person having personal knowledge of the facts such as would be sufficient to defeat a motion for summary judgment (see, Innerarity v County of Westchester, 144 AD2d 645). The plaintiffs failed to comply with either requirement. Bracken, J. P., Balletta, Ritter, Pizzuto and Florio, 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 defendants appeal from an order of the Supreme Court, Nassau County (Gold-stein, J.), entered June 23, 1993, which denied their motion pursuant to CPLR 3012 (b) to dismiss the action for failure to timely serve a complaint.

Ordered that the order is reversed, on the law, with costs, the motion is granted, and the complaint is dismissed.

In order to defeat the motion for dismissal, the plaintiffs should have first offered a reasonable excuse for failing to timely serve a complaint and should have shown that they had a meritorious action by furnishing a sworn statement from a person having personal knowledge of the facts such as would be sufficient to defeat a motion for summary judgment (see, Innerarity v County of Westchester, 144 AD2d 645). The plaintiffs failed to comply with either requirement. Bracken, J. P., Balletta, Ritter, Pizzuto and Florio, JJ., concur.

Cite This Page — Counsel Stack

Bluebook (online)

210 A.D.2d 386, 620 N.Y.S.2d 971, 1994 N.Y. App. Div. LEXIS 12950, Counsel Stack Legal Research, https://law.counselstack.com/opinion/ovadia-v-duffy-nyappdiv-1994.

Opinion

Related

Cite This Page — Counsel Stack