Anjum v. Karagoz
| Citation | 48 A.D.3d 605,852 N.Y.S.2d 354,2008 NY Slip Op 01484 |
| Decision Date | 19 February 2008 |
| Docket Number | 2007-05644. |
| Parties | CHAUDHARY N. ANJUM, Respondent, v. ENVER KARAGOZ et al., Appellants. |
| Court | New York Supreme Court Appellate Division |
Ordered that the order is reversed, on the facts and in the exercise of discretion, with costs, and the plaintiff's motion to vacate the dismissal of the action and to restore the action to the active calendar is denied.
In a compliance conference order dated November 12, 2003, the Supreme Court directed the plaintiff to file a note of issue on or before February 11, 2004 and warned that the action would be deemed dismissed if the plaintiff failed to comply. Counsel for the plaintiff signed the order. This order had the same effect as a 90-day notice pursuant to CPLR 3216 (see Hoffman v Kessler, 28 AD3d 718 [2006]; Rezene v Williams, 22 AD3d 656, 657 [2005]; Vinikour v Jamaica Hosp., 2 AD3d 518, 519 [2003]). The plaintiff failed to comply with this order either by timely serving and filing a note of issue or by moving to extend the period for doing so, and the action was properly dismissed pursuant to CPLR 3216 (see Giannoccoli v One Cent. Park W. Assoc., 15 AD3d 348 [2005]; Werbin v Locicero, 287 AD2d 617, 617-618 [2001]; Flomenhaft v Baron, 281 AD2d 389, 390 [2001]).
To vacate the dismissal of the action pursuant to CPLR 3216, the plaintiff was required to demonstrate a justifiable excuse for the delay in properly responding to the 90-day notice and a meritorious cause of action (see CPLR 3216 [e]; Baczkowski v Collins Constr. Co., 89 NY2d 499, 503 [1997]; Randolph v Cornell, 29 AD3d 557, 558 [2006]; Johnson v State Farm Mut. Auto. Ins. Co., 291 AD2d 533 [2002]; Moran v Pathmark Stores, 278 AD2d 208, 209 [2000]). The Supreme Court improvidently exercised its discretion in granting the plaintiff's motion to vacate the dismissal of the action pursuant to CPLR 3216. The proffered excuse, that the plaintiff disappeared and failed to maintain contact with his attorney, was inadequate to justify the two-year and nine-month delay in responding to the 90-day notice (see Kang v LaGuardia Hosp., 12 AD3d 347,...
To continue reading
Request your trial
-
Bhatti v. Empire Realty Assocs., Inc.
...notice pursuant to CPLR 3216 ( see Shcherbina v. Queens Nassau Nursing Home, Inc., 66 A.D.3d 869, 886 N.Y.S.2d 620;Anjum v. Karagoz, 48 A.D.3d 605, 852 N.Y.S.2d 354). Therefore, the plaintiffs were required either to serve and file a timely note of issue or to move, before the default date,......
-
Kim v. Kim
...Realty Assoc., Inc., 101 A.D.3d 1066, 1067, 956 N.Y.S.2d 557;Stallone v. Richard, 95 A.D.3d 875, 876, 943 N.Y.S.2d 225;Anjum v. Karagoz, 48 A.D.3d 605, 852 N.Y.S.2d 354). Counsel for the plaintiff signed the order, acknowledging receipt thereof. Having received a 90–day notice, the plaintif......
-
Perez v. City of N.Y.
...his motion to vacate pursuant to CPLR 3216(e) was properly denied ( see Sanders, 85 A.D.3d at 1006, 925 N.Y.S.2d 859;Anjum v. Karagoz, 48 A.D.3d 605, 605–606, 852 N.Y.S.2d 354 [2008];Washington, 20 A.D.3d at 305, 799 N.Y.S.2d 31). Alternatively, the court properly granted the cross motions ......
-
Stroll v. Long Island Jewish Med. Ctr.
...70 A.D.3d 1025, 894 N.Y.S.2d 767 ; Shcherbina v. Queens Nassau Nursing Home, Inc., 66 A.D.3d 869, 886 N.Y.S.2d 620 ; Anjum v. Karagoz, 48 A.D.3d 605, 852 N.Y.S.2d 354 ; Bokhari v. Home Depot U.S.A., 4 A.D.3d at 381–382, 771 N.Y.S.2d 395 ).Therefore, the plaintiff was required either to time......