Aguilar v. Knutson
| Decision Date | 29 July 2002 |
| Citation | 296 A.D.2d 562,747 N.Y.S.2d 517 |
| Parties | CECILIA AGUILAR, Appellant,<BR>v.<BR>ROBERT A. KNUTSON, Respondent. |
| Court | New York Supreme Court — Appellate Division |
Ordered that the order is affirmed, with costs.
In a certification order dated April 5, 2000, the Supreme Court, sua sponte, directed the plaintiff to serve and file a note of issue within 90 days, and warned that the failure to comply may serve as a basis for dismissal pursuant to CPLR 3216. Counsel for both parties signed the order. This had the same effect as a valid 90-day notice pursuant to CPLR 3216 . Thus, having received a 90-day notice, the plaintiff was required either to file a note of issue within 90 days or to move pursuant to CPLR 2004 prior to the default date for an extension of time within which to comply (see Werbin v Locicero, supra; Pollucci v Rizzo, 261 AD2d 594; Safina v Queens-Long Is. Med. Group, supra; Scott v Columbia Mem. Hosp., 134 AD2d 792; Salerno v Presbyterian Hosp. in City of N.Y. at Columbia Presbyt. Med. Ctr., 88 AD2d 637, 638). The plaintiff did neither.
To avoid dismissal upon the defendant's motion, the plaintiff was required to show a justifiable excuse for the delay and a meritorious cause of action (see CPLR 3216 [e]; Werbin v Locicero, supra; Pollucci v Rizzo, supra; Papadopoulas v R.B. Supply Corp., 152 AD2d 552). Since the plaintiff failed to offer any excuse to justify the 14-month delay after the 90-day notice in filing the note of issue, and she did not offer an affidavit of merit, the Supreme Court properly granted the defendant's motion.
To continue reading
Request your trial
-
Palumbo v. Dell
...as a valid 90-day notice pursuant to CPLR 3216 ( see Vinikour v. Jamaica Hosp., 2 A.D.3d 518, 519, 767 N.Y.S.2d 873; Aguilar v. Knutson, 296 A.D.2d 562, 747 N.Y.S.2d 517; Werbin v. Locicero, 287 A.D.2d 617, 732 N.Y.S.2d 37). Having received such notice, the plaintiff was required either to ......
-
Sicoli v. Sasson
...Depot U.S.A., 4 A.D.3d 381, 382, 771 N.Y.S.2d 395; Apicella v. Estate of Apicella, 305 A.D.2d 621, 759 N.Y.S.2d 546; Aguilar v. Knutson, 296 A.D.2d 562, 747 N.Y.S.2d 517). The plaintiffs did neither. To avoid the dismissal of the action, the plaintiffs were required to demonstrate a reasona......
-
Pollock v. Meltzer
...Jewish Med. Ctr., 34 A.D.3d 441, 824 N.Y.S.2d 119; Apicella v. Estate of Apicella, 305 A.D.2d 621, 759 N.Y.S.2d 546; Aguilar v. Knutson, 296 A.D.2d 562, 747 N.Y.S.2d 517). The determination of a reasonable excuse lies within the trial court's discretion ( see Santiago v New York City Health......
-
Arnold v. Blitz
... ... lapsed (see Nash v Schopfer, 187 A.D.3d 1535, 1536 ... [4th Dept 2020]; see also Aguilar v Knutson, 296 ... A.D.2d 562, 562-563 [2d Dept 2002]). Hence, the ... defendant's motion must be granted, and the complaint ... must be ... ...