Atterberry v. Serlin

• Decision Date: 21 June 2011
• Citation: 85 A.D.3d 949,2011 N.Y. Slip Op. 05439,925 N.Y.S.2d 860
• Parties: Kathryn M. ATTERBERRY, appellant,v.SERLIN & SERLIN, etc., et al., respondents(and another title).
• Court: New York Supreme Court — Appellate Division

85 A.D.3d 949

925 N.Y.S.2d 860

2011 N.Y. Slip Op. 05439

Kathryn M. ATTERBERRY, appellant,

v.SERLIN & SERLIN, etc., et al., respondents(and another title).

Supreme Court, Appellate Division, Second Department, New York.

June 21, 2011.

OPINION TEXT STARTS HERENeil H. Greenberg & Associates, P.C., Westbury, N.Y. (Justin M. Reilly of counsel), for appellant.Catalano Gallardo & Petropoulos, LLP, Jericho, N.Y. (Matthew K. Flanagan of counsel), for respondents.

In an action to recover damages for legal malpractice, the plaintiff appeals from an order of the Supreme Court, Nassau County (Lally, J.), dated August 5, 2010, which denied her motion to vacate the dismissal of the action pursuant to CPLR 3216 and to extend her time to file a note of issue.

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 pursuant to CPLR 3216 and to extend the time to file a note of issue is granted.

CPLR 3216 is an “extremely forgiving” statute ( Baczkowski v Collins Constr. Co., 89 N.Y.2d 499, 503, 655 N.Y.S.2d 848, 678 N.E.2d 460), which “never requires, but merely authorizes, the Supreme Court to dismiss a plaintiff's action based on the plaintiff's unreasonable neglect to proceed” ( Davis v. Goodsell, 6 A.D.3d 382, 383, 774 N.Y.S.2d 568; see Di Simone v. Good Samaritan Hosp., 100 N.Y.2d 632, 633, 768 N.Y.S.2d 735, 800 N.E.2d 1102; Gibson v. Fakheri, 77 A.D.3d 619, 908 N.Y.S.2d 356; Ferrera v. Esposit, 66 A.D.3d 637, 638, 886 N.Y.S.2d 757). Although the statute prohibits the Supreme Court from dismissing an action based on failure to prosecute whenever the plaintiff has shown a justifiable excuse for the delay and the existence of a potentially meritorious cause of action, “such a dual showing is not strictly necessary in order for the plaintiff to escape such a dismissal” ( Davis v. Goodsell, 6 A.D.3d at 384, 774 N.Y.S.2d 568; see Baczkowski v Collins Constr. Co., 89 N.Y.2d at 503–504, 655 N.Y.S.2d 848, 678 N.E.2d 460; Gibson v. Fakheri, 77 A.D.3d 619, 908 N.Y.S.2d 356; Ferrera v. Esposit, 66 A.D.3d at 638, 886 N.Y.S.2d 757).

Here, the plaintiff attempted to file her note of issue 10 days beyond the deadline set by the Supreme Court's certification order, and the defendants did not claim that they have been prejudiced by the minimal delay ( see Kadyimov v. MacKinnon, 82 A.D.3d 938, 918 N.Y.S.2d 770). In addition, the delay in filing a note of issue was attributable to law office failure, and the plaintiff proffered both a reasonable excuse for her further two-month delay in making this motion and a potentially meritorious cause of action ( see CPLR 2005; Lauri v. Freeport Union Free School Dist., 78 A.D.3d 1130, 912 N.Y.S.2d 278; Goldstein v. Meadows Redevelopment Co Owners Corp. I, 46 A.D.3d 509, 510, 846 N.Y.S.2d 384; Diaz v. Yuan, 28 A.D.3d 603, 814 N.Y.S.2d 204)....