Strachan v. Sam Samaha Restaurant Corp.

Appellate Division of the Supreme Court of New York

Strachan v. Sam Samaha Restaurant Corp.

254 A.D.2d 198, 679 N.Y.S.2d 567, 1998 N.Y. App. Div. LEXIS 11384

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

DecidedOctober 27, 1998

StatusPublished

This text of 254 A.D.2d 198 (Strachan v. Sam Samaha Restaurant Corp.) 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

Strachan v. Sam Samaha Restaurant Corp., 254 A.D.2d 198, 679 N.Y.S.2d 567, 1998 N.Y. App. Div. LEXIS 11384 (N.Y. Ct. App. 1998).

Pincite

Opinion

Order, Supreme Court, New York County (Richard Lowe, III, J.), entered March 12, 1997, granting third-party defendants’ cross motion to dismiss plaintiffs complaint pursuant to CPLR 3216 for want of prosecution, unanimously affirmed, without costs.

The motion court’s dismissal of plaintiffs action pursuant to CPLR 3216 for want of prosecution was proper. After unreasonably allowing her action to remain dormant for some 18 months subsequent to her appointment as administratrix of the original plaintiffs estate, plaintiff failed to serve and file a note of issue within 90 days of third-party defendants’ service of a demand therefor (see, Baczkowski v Collins Constr. Co., 89 NY2d 499, 503). We note in further support of the motion court’s determination that plaintiff failed to present an affidavit of merit demonstrating a good and meritorious cause of action (see, CPLR 3216 [e]; see also, Pell v Button, 44 AD2d 549, appeal dismissed 34 NY2d 936). Concur — Sullivan, J. P., Rosenberger, Nardelli, Williams and Andrias, JJ.

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

Order, Supreme Court, New York County (Richard Lowe, III, J.), entered March 12, 1997, granting third-party defendants’ cross motion to dismiss plaintiffs complaint pursuant to CPLR 3216 for want of prosecution, unanimously affirmed, without costs.

The motion court’s dismissal of plaintiffs action pursuant to CPLR 3216 for want of prosecution was proper. After unreasonably allowing her action to remain dormant for some 18 months subsequent to her appointment as administratrix of the original plaintiffs estate, plaintiff failed to serve and file a note of issue within 90 days of third-party defendants’ service of a demand therefor (see, Baczkowski v Collins Constr. Co., 89 NY2d 499, 503). We note in further support of the motion court’s determination that plaintiff failed to present an affidavit of merit demonstrating a good and meritorious cause of action (see, CPLR 3216 [e]; see also, Pell v Button, 44 AD2d 549, appeal dismissed 34 NY2d 936). Concur — Sullivan, J. P., Rosenberger, Nardelli, Williams and Andrias, JJ.

Cite This Page — Counsel Stack

Bluebook (online)

254 A.D.2d 198, 679 N.Y.S.2d 567, 1998 N.Y. App. Div. LEXIS 11384, Counsel Stack Legal Research, https://law.counselstack.com/opinion/strachan-v-sam-samaha-restaurant-corp-nyappdiv-1998.

Opinion

Related

Cite This Page — Counsel Stack