Sarles v. Village of Tarrytown

Appellate Division of the Supreme Court of New York

Sarles v. Village of Tarrytown

245 A.D.2d 440, 666 N.Y.S.2d 468, 1997 N.Y. App. Div. LEXIS 13103

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

DecidedDecember 15, 1997

StatusPublished

Cited by2 cases

This text of 245 A.D.2d 440 (Sarles v. Village of Tarrytown) 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

Sarles v. Village of Tarrytown, 245 A.D.2d 440, 666 N.Y.S.2d 468, 1997 N.Y. App. Div. LEXIS 13103 (N.Y. Ct. App. 1997).

Pincite

Opinion

—In an action to recover damages for personal injuries and wrongful death, the plaintiff appeals from an order of the Supreme Court, Westchester County (Donovan, J.), entered January 7, 1997, which granted the defendants’ motions to dismiss the action.

Ordered that the order is affirmed, with costs.

The plaintiff failed to respond to the defendants’ demands for a complaint pursuant to CPLR 3012 (b) until the instant motions were made over eight months later. The plaintiffs excuse for her default was a conclusory assertion of law office failure. She failed to submit an affidavit of merit. Under the circumstances dismissal of the action was warranted (see, Kel Mgt. Corp. v Rogers & Wells, 64 NY2d 904; Covello v Covello, 119 AD2d 792; Courell v Kurzner, 118 AD2d 677).

In light of our determination, the appellant’s remaining contentions need not be addressed. Rosenblatt, J. P., O’Brien, Thompson, Friedmann and Goldstein, 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 and wrongful death, the plaintiff appeals from an order of the Supreme Court, Westchester County (Donovan, J.), entered January 7, 1997, which granted the defendants’ motions to dismiss the action.

Ordered that the order is affirmed, with costs.

The plaintiff failed to respond to the defendants’ demands for a complaint pursuant to CPLR 3012 (b) until the instant motions were made over eight months later. The plaintiffs excuse for her default was a conclusory assertion of law office failure. She failed to submit an affidavit of merit. Under the circumstances dismissal of the action was warranted (see, Kel Mgt. Corp. v Rogers & Wells, 64 NY2d 904; Covello v Covello, 119 AD2d 792; Courell v Kurzner, 118 AD2d 677).

In light of our determination, the appellant’s remaining contentions need not be addressed. Rosenblatt, J. P., O’Brien, Thompson, Friedmann and Goldstein, JJ., concur.

Cite This Page — Counsel Stack

Bluebook (online)

245 A.D.2d 440, 666 N.Y.S.2d 468, 1997 N.Y. App. Div. LEXIS 13103, Counsel Stack Legal Research, https://law.counselstack.com/opinion/sarles-v-village-of-tarrytown-nyappdiv-1997.

Opinion

Related

Cite This Page — Counsel Stack