Sturkey v. Ramdas

Appellate Division of the Supreme Court of New York

Sturkey v. Ramdas

307 A.D.2d 310, 762 N.Y.S.2d 520, 2003 N.Y. App. Div. LEXIS 8254

Appellate Division of the Supreme Court of the State of New York·Decided July 21, 2003·Published·Cited by 1 cases

Opinion

In an action to recover damages for personal injuries, etc., the defendant appeals from an order of the Supreme Court, Queens County (Price, J.), dated March 13, 2002, which denied his motion to dismiss the complaint pursuant to CPLR 3216 for failure to prosecute.

Ordered that the order is reversed, on the law, with costs, the motion is granted, and the complaint is dismissed.

The plaintiffs, having been served with a 90-day demand pursuant to CPLR 3216 (b) (3), were required to comply with the demand by filing a note of issue or by moving, before the default date, either to vacate the demand or to extend the 90-day period (see Raffa v Cook, 289 AD2d 385 [2001]; Chong Suk Rose v Heil Trailer Intl., 284 AD2d 445 [2001]). The plaintiffs failed to meet any of these requirements. In order to defeat the defendant’s subsequent motion to dismiss, the plaintiffs were required to demonstrate a justifiable excuse for the delay in properly responding to the demand and the existence of a meritorious action (see Raffa v Cook, supra). The plaintiffs did neither. Accordingly, the defendant’s motion to dismiss should have been granted. Santucci, J.P., Smith, Luciano, Schmidt and Mastro, 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, etc., the defendant appeals from an order of the Supreme Court, Queens County (Price, J.), dated March 13, 2002, which denied his motion to dismiss the complaint pursuant to CPLR 3216 for failure to prosecute.

Ordered that the order is reversed, on the law, with costs, the motion is granted, and the complaint is dismissed.

The plaintiffs, having been served with a 90-day demand pursuant to CPLR 3216 (b) (3), were required to comply with the demand by filing a note of issue or by moving, before the default date, either to vacate the demand or to extend the 90-day period (see Raffa v Cook, 289 AD2d 385 [2001]; Chong Suk Rose v Heil Trailer Intl., 284 AD2d 445 [2001]). The plaintiffs failed to meet any of these requirements. In order to defeat the defendant’s subsequent motion to dismiss, the plaintiffs were required to demonstrate a justifiable excuse for the delay in properly responding to the demand and the existence of a meritorious action (see Raffa v Cook, supra). The plaintiffs did neither. Accordingly, the defendant’s motion to dismiss should have been granted. Santucci, J.P., Smith, Luciano, Schmidt and Mastro, JJ., concur.

Sturkey v. Ramdas, 307 A.D.2d 310, 762 N.Y.S.2d 520, 2003 N.Y. App. Div. LEXIS 8254 (N.Y. Ct. App. 2003).

Pincite

307 A.D.2d 310 (Sturkey v. Ramdas) — published by Counsel Stack Legal Research, free access to 12M+ legal documents.

Opinion

Related