Richter v. Dunlap

Appellate Division of the Supreme Court of New York

Richter v. Dunlap

214 A.D.2d 983, 627 N.Y.S.2d 604, 1995 N.Y. App. Div. LEXIS 6720

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

DecidedApril 28, 1995

StatusPublished

Cited by2 cases

This text of 214 A.D.2d 983 (Richter v. Dunlap) 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

Richter v. Dunlap, 214 A.D.2d 983, 627 N.Y.S.2d 604, 1995 N.Y. App. Div. LEXIS 6720 (N.Y. Ct. App. 1995).

Pincite

Opinion

Order unanimously reversed on the law without costs, motion granted and complaint dismissed. Memorandum: Supreme Court erred in denying defen[984]*984dants’ motion. Plaintiff failed to provide a sufficient excuse for her failure to file a note of issue within the 90-day demand period (see, Terry v Southern Container, 214 AD2d 983 [decided herewith]; Franck v CNY Anesthesia Group, 175 AD2d 605; MacLeod v Nolte, 106 AD2d 860; Barnard v Tops Friendly Mkts., 99 AD2d 654), and her attorney’s affidavit, which contained only conclusory allegations of merit, is insufficient to demonstrate a meritorious cause of action (see, Terry v Southern Container, supra; Freer v Black, 175 AD2d 577, lv denied 78 NY2d 862; Zent v Board of Educ., 174 AD2d 1047, 1048). (Appeal from Order of Supreme Court, Niagara County, Mintz, J.—Dismiss Complaint.) Present—Denman, P. J., Law-ton, Wesley, 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 without costs, motion granted and complaint dismissed. Memorandum: Supreme Court erred in denying defen[984]*984dants’ motion. Plaintiff failed to provide a sufficient excuse for her failure to file a note of issue within the 90-day demand period (see, Terry v Southern Container, 214 AD2d 983 [decided herewith]; Franck v CNY Anesthesia Group, 175 AD2d 605; MacLeod v Nolte, 106 AD2d 860; Barnard v Tops Friendly Mkts., 99 AD2d 654), and her attorney’s affidavit, which contained only conclusory allegations of merit, is insufficient to demonstrate a meritorious cause of action (see, Terry v Southern Container, supra; Freer v Black, 175 AD2d 577, lv denied 78 NY2d 862; Zent v Board of Educ., 174 AD2d 1047, 1048). (Appeal from Order of Supreme Court, Niagara County, Mintz, J.—Dismiss Complaint.) Present—Denman, P. J., Law-ton, Wesley, Balio and Davis, JJ.

Cite This Page — Counsel Stack

Bluebook (online)

214 A.D.2d 983, 627 N.Y.S.2d 604, 1995 N.Y. App. Div. LEXIS 6720, Counsel Stack Legal Research, https://law.counselstack.com/opinion/richter-v-dunlap-nyappdiv-1995.

Opinion

Related

Cite This Page — Counsel Stack