Ramcharan v. 625 Fulton Associates

Appellate Division of the Supreme Court of New York

Ramcharan v. 625 Fulton Associates

300 A.D.2d 644, 751 N.Y.S.2d 776, 2002 N.Y. App. Div. LEXIS 13359

Appellate Division of the Supreme Court of the State of New York·Decided December 30, 2002·Published·Cited by 1 cases

Opinion

—In an action to recover damages for personal injuries, the plaintiff appeals from an order of the Supreme Court, Kings County [645] (Jones, J.), dated November 16, 2000, which granted the motion of the defendant Herbert Construction Company pursuant to CPLR 3216 (a) to dismiss the complaint insofar as asserted against it for failure to prosecute.

Ordered that the order is affirmed, with costs.

CPLR 3216 “provides a party confronted with a less than diligent adversary with a means to expedite the prosecution of the action by serving upon him a written demand that he file a note of issue within 90 days, or in the event of a default, risk dismissal of the action” (Carte v Segall, 134 AD2d 397, 398; see Papadopoulas v R.B. Supply Corp., 152 AD2d 552, 553). To avoid a default, “a plaintiff served with a 90-day notice must comply either by timely filing a note of issue or moving for an extension of time within which to comply pursuant to CPLR 2004” (Carte v Segall, supra at 398).

“Having failed to pursue either of the foregoing options, the plaintiff was obligated to demonstrate a reasonable excuse and a good and meritorious cause of action to avoid the sanction of dismissal” (Papadopoulas v R.B. Supply Corp., supra at 553; see CPLR 3216 [e]; Kwiatkowska v Aramburu, 133 AD2d 810). The plaintiff failed to satisfy this standard. Feuerstein, J.P., Krausman, Luciano, Townes and Cozier, 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 plaintiff appeals from an order of the Supreme Court, Kings County [645] (Jones, J.), dated November 16, 2000, which granted the motion of the defendant Herbert Construction Company pursuant to CPLR 3216 (a) to dismiss the complaint insofar as asserted against it for failure to prosecute.

Ordered that the order is affirmed, with costs.

CPLR 3216 “provides a party confronted with a less than diligent adversary with a means to expedite the prosecution of the action by serving upon him a written demand that he file a note of issue within 90 days, or in the event of a default, risk dismissal of the action” (Carte v Segall, 134 AD2d 397, 398; see Papadopoulas v R.B. Supply Corp., 152 AD2d 552, 553). To avoid a default, “a plaintiff served with a 90-day notice must comply either by timely filing a note of issue or moving for an extension of time within which to comply pursuant to CPLR 2004” (Carte v Segall, supra at 398).

“Having failed to pursue either of the foregoing options, the plaintiff was obligated to demonstrate a reasonable excuse and a good and meritorious cause of action to avoid the sanction of dismissal” (Papadopoulas v R.B. Supply Corp., supra at 553; see CPLR 3216 [e]; Kwiatkowska v Aramburu, 133 AD2d 810). The plaintiff failed to satisfy this standard. Feuerstein, J.P., Krausman, Luciano, Townes and Cozier, JJ., concur.

Ramcharan v. 625 Fulton Associates, 300 A.D.2d 644, 751 N.Y.S.2d 776, 2002 N.Y. App. Div. LEXIS 13359 (N.Y. Ct. App. 2002).

Pincite

300 A.D.2d 644 (Ramcharan v. 625 Fulton Associates) — published by Counsel Stack Legal Research, free access to 12M+ legal documents.

Opinion

Related