Piscopo v. Delman

Appellate Division of the Supreme Court of New York

Piscopo v. Delman

127 A.D.2d 826, 512 N.Y.S.2d 221, 1987 N.Y. App. Div. LEXIS 43319

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

DecidedFebruary 23, 1987

StatusPublished

This text of 127 A.D.2d 826 (Piscopo v. Delman) 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

Piscopo v. Delman, 127 A.D.2d 826, 512 N.Y.S.2d 221, 1987 N.Y. App. Div. LEXIS 43319 (N.Y. Ct. App. 1987).

Pincite

Opinion

In an action to recover damages for personal injuries, the defendant appeals from an order of the Supreme Court, Westchester County (Dickinson, J.), entered August 12, 1985, which denied his motion to dismiss the action for failure to timely serve a complaint.

Ordered that the order is reversed, on the law and in the exercise of discretion, without costs or disbursements, the motion is granted, and the action is dismissed.

Since the plaintiffs sought to serve their complaint after expiration of the 20-day statutory period following service of the demand therefor, it was incumbent upon them to establish [827]*827a reasonable excuse for the delay and a prima facie showing of legal merit (see, Egan v Federated Dept. Stores, 108 AD2d 718). Instead, however, they did nothing after the defendant rejected their complaint as untimely served and failed to oppose the defendant’s motion to dismiss the action pursuant to CPLR 3012 (b). In light of these defaults, Special Term erred in denying the defendant’s dismissal motion (see, Kel Mgt. Corp. v Rogers & Wells, 64 NY2d 904). Mangano, J. P., Brown, Rubin and Eiber, 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 defendant appeals from an order of the Supreme Court, Westchester County (Dickinson, J.), entered August 12, 1985, which denied his motion to dismiss the action for failure to timely serve a complaint.

Ordered that the order is reversed, on the law and in the exercise of discretion, without costs or disbursements, the motion is granted, and the action is dismissed.

Since the plaintiffs sought to serve their complaint after expiration of the 20-day statutory period following service of the demand therefor, it was incumbent upon them to establish [827]*827a reasonable excuse for the delay and a prima facie showing of legal merit (see, Egan v Federated Dept. Stores, 108 AD2d 718). Instead, however, they did nothing after the defendant rejected their complaint as untimely served and failed to oppose the defendant’s motion to dismiss the action pursuant to CPLR 3012 (b). In light of these defaults, Special Term erred in denying the defendant’s dismissal motion (see, Kel Mgt. Corp. v Rogers & Wells, 64 NY2d 904). Mangano, J. P., Brown, Rubin and Eiber, JJ., concur.

Cite This Page — Counsel Stack

Bluebook (online)

127 A.D.2d 826, 512 N.Y.S.2d 221, 1987 N.Y. App. Div. LEXIS 43319, Counsel Stack Legal Research, https://law.counselstack.com/opinion/piscopo-v-delman-nyappdiv-1987.

Opinion

Related

Cite This Page — Counsel Stack