Tutora v. Schirripa

Appellate Division of the Supreme Court of New York

Tutora v. Schirripa

1 A.D.2d 349, 766 N.Y.S.2d 574

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

DecidedNovember 3, 2003

StatusPublished

This text of 1 A.D.2d 349 (Tutora v. Schirripa) 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

Tutora v. Schirripa, 1 A.D.2d 349, 766 N.Y.S.2d 574 (N.Y. Ct. App. 2003).

Pincite

Opinion

In an action to recover damages for medical malpractice, the plaintiff appeals from an order of the Supreme Court, Westchester County (Murphy, J.), entered September 24, 2002, which granted the defendant’s motion pursuant to CPLR 3012 (b) to dismiss the action for failure to timely serve a complaint, and denied his cross motion to enlarge his time to serve a complaint.

[350]*350Ordered that the order is affirmed, with costs.

It is well settled that to avoid dismissal for failure to serve a complaint after a demand therefor has been served pursuant to CPLR 3012 (b), a plaintiff must demonstrate both a reasonable excuse for the delay in serving the complaint and a meritorious cause of action (see Dunefsky v Petco Animal Supplies, 303 AD2d 620 [2003]; Balgley v Cammarata, 299 AD2d 432 [2002]; Miraglia v County of Nassau, 295 AD2d 411 [2002]). The plaintiff failed to show the existence of a meritorious cause of action. Accordingly, the Supreme Court properly dismissed the action. Santucci, J.E, Goldstein, Schmidt 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 medical malpractice, the plaintiff appeals from an order of the Supreme Court, Westchester County (Murphy, J.), entered September 24, 2002, which granted the defendant’s motion pursuant to CPLR 3012 (b) to dismiss the action for failure to timely serve a complaint, and denied his cross motion to enlarge his time to serve a complaint.

[350]*350Ordered that the order is affirmed, with costs.

It is well settled that to avoid dismissal for failure to serve a complaint after a demand therefor has been served pursuant to CPLR 3012 (b), a plaintiff must demonstrate both a reasonable excuse for the delay in serving the complaint and a meritorious cause of action (see Dunefsky v Petco Animal Supplies, 303 AD2d 620 [2003]; Balgley v Cammarata, 299 AD2d 432 [2002]; Miraglia v County of Nassau, 295 AD2d 411 [2002]). The plaintiff failed to show the existence of a meritorious cause of action. Accordingly, the Supreme Court properly dismissed the action. Santucci, J.E, Goldstein, Schmidt and Cozier, JJ., concur.

Cite This Page — Counsel Stack

Bluebook (online)

1 A.D.2d 349, 766 N.Y.S.2d 574, Counsel Stack Legal Research, https://law.counselstack.com/opinion/tutora-v-schirripa-nyappdiv-2003.

Opinion

Related

Cite This Page — Counsel Stack