Webb v. Zogaria

Appellate Division of the Supreme Court of New York

Webb v. Zogaria

295 A.D.2d 924, 744 N.Y.S.2d 736, 2002 N.Y. App. Div. LEXIS 6191

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

DecidedJune 14, 2002

StatusPublished

Cited by2 cases

This text of 295 A.D.2d 924 (Webb v. Zogaria) 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

Webb v. Zogaria, 295 A.D.2d 924, 744 N.Y.S.2d 736, 2002 N.Y. App. Div. LEXIS 6191 (N.Y. Ct. App. 2002).

Pincite

Opinion

—Appeal from an order of Supreme Court, Erie County (Glownia, J.), entered December 31, 2001, which, inter alia, denied defendants’ motion to dismiss the complaint for failure to serve and file a note of issue.

It is hereby ordered that the order so appealed from be and the same hereby is unanimously reversed in the exercise of discretion without costs, the motion is granted, the complaint is dismissed and the cross motion is denied.

Memorandum: Supreme Court improvidently exercised its discretion in denying defendants’ motion to dismiss the complaint pursuant to CPLR 3216. “Although a court may possess residual discretion to deny a motion to dismiss when plaintiff [fails to comply with CPLR 3216] * * *, this discretion should be exercised sparingly to honor the balance struck by the generous statutory protections already built into CPLR 3216” (Baczkowski v Collins Constr. Co., 89 NY2d 499, 504). We conclude that defendants’ motion should have been granted based on plaintiff’s failure to make a showing of a meritorious cause of action (see generally id. at 503). Although defendants have conceded that defendant Cindy E. Zogaria was negligent, the record contains no evidence to support the contention of plaintiff that there was a causal connection between the spinal surgery that she underwent and the rear-end collision at issue in this case. Present—Pigott, Jr., P.J., Pine, Wisner, Scudder and Lawton, JJ.

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

—Appeal from an order of Supreme Court, Erie County (Glownia, J.), entered December 31, 2001, which, inter alia, denied defendants’ motion to dismiss the complaint for failure to serve and file a note of issue.

It is hereby ordered that the order so appealed from be and the same hereby is unanimously reversed in the exercise of discretion without costs, the motion is granted, the complaint is dismissed and the cross motion is denied.

Memorandum: Supreme Court improvidently exercised its discretion in denying defendants’ motion to dismiss the complaint pursuant to CPLR 3216. “Although a court may possess residual discretion to deny a motion to dismiss when plaintiff [fails to comply with CPLR 3216] * * *, this discretion should be exercised sparingly to honor the balance struck by the generous statutory protections already built into CPLR 3216” (Baczkowski v Collins Constr. Co., 89 NY2d 499, 504). We conclude that defendants’ motion should have been granted based on plaintiff’s failure to make a showing of a meritorious cause of action (see generally id. at 503). Although defendants have conceded that defendant Cindy E. Zogaria was negligent, the record contains no evidence to support the contention of plaintiff that there was a causal connection between the spinal surgery that she underwent and the rear-end collision at issue in this case. Present—Pigott, Jr., P.J., Pine, Wisner, Scudder and Lawton, JJ.

Cite This Page — Counsel Stack

Bluebook (online)

295 A.D.2d 924, 744 N.Y.S.2d 736, 2002 N.Y. App. Div. LEXIS 6191, Counsel Stack Legal Research, https://law.counselstack.com/opinion/webb-v-zogaria-nyappdiv-2002.

Opinion

Related

Cite This Page — Counsel Stack