Angamarca v. 47-51 Bridge St. Prop., LLC, 2017–09974
| Court | New York Supreme Court Appellate Division |
| Citation | 90 N.Y.S.3d 70,167 A.D.3d 559 |
| Decision Date | 05 December 2018 |
| Parties | Luis ANGAMARCA, Respondent, v. 47–51 BRIDGE STREET PROPERTY, LLC, et al., Appellants (And Third-Party Actions). |
| Docket Number | 2017–09974,Index No. 505451/15 |
167 A.D.3d 559
90 N.Y.S.3d 70
Luis ANGAMARCA, Respondent,
v.
47–51 BRIDGE STREET PROPERTY, LLC, et al., Appellants
(And Third-Party Actions).
2017–09974
Index No. 505451/15
Supreme Court, Appellate Division, Second Department, New York.
Argued—November 9, 2018
December 5, 2018
Litchfield Cavo LLP, New York, N.Y. (Dennis J. Dozis and Morgan E. Mueller of counsel), for appellants.
Valdebenito & Associates, P.C. (Matthew Voelpel and Mitchell Dranow, Sea Cliff, NY, of counsel), for respondent.
WILLIAM F. MASTRO, J.P., JOHN M. LEVENTHAL, SANDRA L. SGROI, ANGELA G. IANNACCI, JJ.
DECISION & ORDER
In an action to recover damages for personal injuries, the defendants appeal from an order of the Supreme Court, Kings County (Debra Silber, J.), dated April 20, 2017. The order denied the defendants' motion pursuant to CPLR 3216 to dismiss the action for failure to prosecute.
ORDERED that the order is affirmed, with costs.
In May 2015, the plaintiff commenced this action against the defendants to recover damages for personal injuries. The defendants served their separate answers on or about September 14, 2015. On August 12, 2016, the defendants served a 90–day demand to resume prosecution. When the plaintiff failed to comply, the defendants moved pursuant to CPLR 3216 to dismiss the action for failure to prosecute. In an order dated April 20, 2017, the Supreme Court denied the motion. The defendants appeal.
Where, as here, a plaintiff has been served with a 90–day demand pursuant to CPLR 3216(b)(3), that plaintiff must 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 Deutsche Bank Natl. Trust Co. v. Inga, 156 A.D.3d 760, 67 N.Y.S.3d 264 ). The plaintiff here failed to do either within the 90–day period. Therefore, in order to excuse the default, the plaintiff was required to demonstrate a justifiable excuse for his failure
To continue reading
Request your trial
-
HSBC Bank USA, N.A. v. Williams, 2017–00411
...neglect to proceed" ( Davis v. Goodsell, 6 A.D.3d 382, 384, 774 N.Y.S.2d 568 ; see Angamarca v. 47–51 Bridge St. Prop., LLC, 167 A.D.3d 559, 90 N.Y.S.3d 70 ; Deutsche Bank Natl. Trust Co. v. Inga, 156 A.D.3d at 761, 67 N.Y.S.3d 264 ).Here, the plaintiff demonstrated the existence of a ......
-
HSBC Bank USA, Nat'l Ass'n v. Fortini, 2019-01775
...N.Y.S.2d 568, quoting Martinisi v. Cornwall Hosp., 177 A.D.2d 549, 551, 576 N.Y.S.2d 150 ; see Angamarca v. 47–51 Bridge St. Prop., LLC, 167 A.D.3d 559, 560, 90 N.Y.S.3d 70 ). Additionally, the plaintiff demonstrated a meritorious cause of action for the purposes of avoiding dismissal (see ......
-
Rodriguez v. Diallo, 2019–0455
...929 N.Y.S.2d 67, 952 N.E.2d 1060 ; Ramirez v. Reyes, 171 A.D.3d 1114, 1116, 98 N.Y.S.3d 235 ; Angamarca v. 47–51 Bridge St. Prop., LLC, 167 A.D.3d 559, 90 N.Y.S.3d 70 ). The determination of what constitutes a justifiable excuse for a default lies within the sound discretion of the Supreme ......
-
Ramirez v. Reyes, 2017–12513
...action (see Umeze v. Fidelis Care N.Y., 17 N.Y.3d 751, 751, 929 N.Y.S.2d 67, 952 N.E.2d 1060 ; Angamarca v. 47–51 Bridge St. Prop., LLC, 167 A.D.3d 559, 90 N.Y.S.3d 70 ). The plaintiff, however, made neither of these showings. Accordingly, the Supreme Court did not improvidently exercise it......
-
HSBC Bank USA, N.A. v. Williams, 2017–00411
...unreasonable neglect to proceed" ( Davis v. Goodsell, 6 A.D.3d 382, 384, 774 N.Y.S.2d 568 ; see Angamarca v. 47–51 Bridge St. Prop., LLC, 167 A.D.3d 559, 90 N.Y.S.3d 70 ; Deutsche Bank Natl. Trust Co. v. Inga, 156 A.D.3d at 761, 67 N.Y.S.3d 264 ).Here, the plaintiff demonstrated the existen......
-
HSBC Bank USA, Nat'l Ass'n v. Fortini, 2019-01775
...N.Y.S.2d 568, quoting Martinisi v. Cornwall Hosp., 177 A.D.2d 549, 551, 576 N.Y.S.2d 150 ; see Angamarca v. 47–51 Bridge St. Prop., LLC, 167 A.D.3d 559, 560, 90 N.Y.S.3d 70 ). Additionally, the plaintiff demonstrated a meritorious cause of action for the purposes of avoiding dismissal (see ......
-
Rodriguez v. Diallo, 2019–0455
...929 N.Y.S.2d 67, 952 N.E.2d 1060 ; Ramirez v. Reyes, 171 A.D.3d 1114, 1116, 98 N.Y.S.3d 235 ; Angamarca v. 47–51 Bridge St. Prop., LLC, 167 A.D.3d 559, 90 N.Y.S.3d 70 ). The determination of what constitutes a justifiable excuse for a default lies within the sound discretion of the Supreme ......
-
Ramirez v. Reyes, 2017–12513
...action (see Umeze v. Fidelis Care N.Y., 17 N.Y.3d 751, 751, 929 N.Y.S.2d 67, 952 N.E.2d 1060 ; Angamarca v. 47–51 Bridge St. Prop., LLC, 167 A.D.3d 559, 90 N.Y.S.3d 70 ). The plaintiff, however, made neither of these showings. Accordingly, the Supreme Court did not improvidently exercise it......