Pinkoski v. Rochester City Court Records Department

Appellate Division of the Supreme Court of New York

Pinkoski v. Rochester City Court Records Department

190 A.D.2d 1055, 594 N.Y.S.2d 1011, 1993 N.Y. App. Div. LEXIS 1276

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

DecidedFebruary 5, 1993

StatusPublished

This text of 190 A.D.2d 1055 (Pinkoski v. Rochester City Court Records Department) 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

Pinkoski v. Rochester City Court Records Department, 190 A.D.2d 1055, 594 N.Y.S.2d 1011, 1993 N.Y. App. Div. LEXIS 1276 (N.Y. Ct. App. 1993).

Pincite

Opinion

— Order unanimously reversed on the law with costs, motion granted and complaint dismissed. Memorandum: Defendant City of Rochester appeals from an order that denied its motion to dismiss pursuant to CPLR 3216 for failure to prosecute. In denying defendant’s motion, the court granted plaintiff three weeks within which to resume prosecution by filing a note of issue.

We conclude that the action should be dismissed. In response to defendant City’s 90-day demand to resume prosecution, plaintiff failed to file a note of issue or take any steps to indicate that he had any interest in resuming prosecution (see, Mason v Simmons, 139 AD2d 880, 881). It was therefore necessary for plaintiff, in order to avoid dismissal, to show [1056]*1056both a justifiable excuse for his delay in prosecuting the action and a good and meritorious cause of action (CPLR 3216 [e]; Azzoto v City of Syracuse; 176 AD2d 1197, lv denied 79 NY2d 752; Mason v Simmons, supra). Plaintiff failed to do either. (Appeal from Order of Supreme Court, Monroe County, Rosenbloom, J. — Dismiss Complaint.) Present — Denman, P. J., Boomer, Green, Balio and Davis, JJ.

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

— Order unanimously reversed on the law with costs, motion granted and complaint dismissed. Memorandum: Defendant City of Rochester appeals from an order that denied its motion to dismiss pursuant to CPLR 3216 for failure to prosecute. In denying defendant’s motion, the court granted plaintiff three weeks within which to resume prosecution by filing a note of issue.

We conclude that the action should be dismissed. In response to defendant City’s 90-day demand to resume prosecution, plaintiff failed to file a note of issue or take any steps to indicate that he had any interest in resuming prosecution (see, Mason v Simmons, 139 AD2d 880, 881). It was therefore necessary for plaintiff, in order to avoid dismissal, to show [1056]*1056both a justifiable excuse for his delay in prosecuting the action and a good and meritorious cause of action (CPLR 3216 [e]; Azzoto v City of Syracuse; 176 AD2d 1197, lv denied 79 NY2d 752; Mason v Simmons, supra). Plaintiff failed to do either. (Appeal from Order of Supreme Court, Monroe County, Rosenbloom, J. — Dismiss Complaint.) Present — Denman, P. J., Boomer, Green, Balio and Davis, JJ.

Cite This Page — Counsel Stack

Bluebook (online)

190 A.D.2d 1055, 594 N.Y.S.2d 1011, 1993 N.Y. App. Div. LEXIS 1276, Counsel Stack Legal Research, https://law.counselstack.com/opinion/pinkoski-v-rochester-city-court-records-department-nyappdiv-1993.

Opinion

Related

Cite This Page — Counsel Stack