Bhatti v. Empire Realty Assocs., Inc.
Decision Date | 26 December 2012 |
Citation | 101 A.D.3d 1066,956 N.Y.S.2d 557,2012 N.Y. Slip Op. 09018 |
Parties | Noor BHATTI, etc., et al., respondents, v. EMPIRE REALTY ASSOCIATES, INC., et al., appellants. |
Court | New York Supreme Court — Appellate Division |
OPINION TEXT STARTS HERE
McManus & Richter, P.C., New York, N.Y. (Nicholas P. Chrysanthem, Scott C. Tuttle, and Caitlin Nutter of counsel), for appellants.
Martin R. Munitz, P.C., New York, N.Y. (Louis A. Badolato and George Greene of counsel), for respondents.
WILLIAM F. MASTRO, J.P., REINALDO E. RIVERA, CHERYL E. CHAMBERS, and PLUMMER E. LOTT, JJ.
In an action to recover damages for personal injuries, etc., the defendants appeal from an order of the Supreme Court, Kings County(Silber, J.), dated April 12, 2012, which granted the plaintiffs' motion, in effect, to vacate the dismissal of the action pursuant to CPLR 3216, to restore the action to active status, and to extend their time to file a note of issue.
ORDERED that the order is reversed, on the law, with costs, and the plaintiffs' motion, in effect, to vacate the dismissal of the action pursuant to CPLR 3216, to restore the action to active status, and to extend their time to file a note of issue is denied.
In a compliance conference order date March 3, 2006, the Supreme Court directed the plaintiffs to file a note of issue on or before September 3, 2006, and warned that the action would be dismissed if the plaintiffs failed to comply.Counsel for the plaintiffs signed the order, acknowledging receipt thereof.This order had the same effect as a 90–day notice pursuant to CPLR 3216( seeShcherbina 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, for an extension of time pursuant to CPLR 2004( seeStallone v. Richard,95 A.D.3d 875, 876, 943 N.Y.S.2d 225;Davis v. Cardiovascular Consultants of Long Is., P.C.,65 A.D.3d 1076, 1077, 886 N.Y.S.2d 61;Sharpe v. Osorio,21 A.D.3d 467, 468, 800 N.Y.S.2d 213;Giannoccoli v. One Cent. Park W. Assoc.,15 A.D.3d 348, 348–349, 790 N.Y.S.2d 159;DeVore v. Lederman,14 A.D.3d 648, 649, 789 N.Y.S.2d 507).The plaintiffs did neither.Accordingly, the action was properly dismissed pursuant to CPLR 3216( seeShcherbina v. Queens Nassau Nursing Home, Inc.,66 A.D.3d at 869, 886 N.Y.S.2d 620;Bowman v. Kusnick,35 A.D.3d 643, 644, 827 N.Y.S.2d 258).
To vacate the dismissal of an action pursuant to CPLR 3216, the plaintiffs were required to demonstrate a justifiable excuse for their failure to comply with the compliance conference order and the existence of a potentially meritorious cause of action ( seeCPLR3216[e];Baczkowski v. Collins Constr. Co.,89 N.Y.2d 499, 503, 655 N.Y.S.2d 848, 678 N.E.2d 460;Stallone v. Richard,95 A.D.3d at 876, 943 N.Y.S.2d 225;Felix v. County of Nassau,52 A.D.3d 653, 654, 860 N.Y.S.2d 196;Petersen v. Lysaght, Lysaght & Kramer, P.C.,47 A.D.3d 783, 851 N.Y.S.2d 209).Here, the conclusory and unsubstantiated claim of law office failure proffered by the plaintiffs did not rise to the level of a justifiable excuse ( seeStallone v. Richard,95 A.D.3d at 876, 943 N.Y.S.2d 225;Fenner v. County of Nassau,80 A.D.3d 555, 556, 914 N.Y.S.2d 653;Lugauer v. Forest City Ratner Co.,44 A.D.3d 829, 830, 843 N.Y.S.2d 456).As the plaintiffs failed to provide a justifiable...
Get this document and AI-powered insights with a free trial of vLex and Vincent AI
Get Started for FreeStart Your 3-day Free Trial of vLex and Vincent AI, Your Precision-Engineered Legal Assistant
-
Access comprehensive legal content with no limitations across vLex's unparalleled global legal database
-
Build stronger arguments with verified citations and CERT citator that tracks case history and precedential strength
-
Transform your legal research from hours to minutes with Vincent AI's intelligent search and analysis capabilities
-
Elevate your practice by focusing your expertise where it matters most while Vincent handles the heavy lifting

Start Your 3-day Free Trial of vLex and Vincent AI, Your Precision-Engineered Legal Assistant
-
Access comprehensive legal content with no limitations across vLex's unparalleled global legal database
-
Build stronger arguments with verified citations and CERT citator that tracks case history and precedential strength
-
Transform your legal research from hours to minutes with Vincent AI's intelligent search and analysis capabilities
-
Elevate your practice by focusing your expertise where it matters most while Vincent handles the heavy lifting

Start Your 3-day Free Trial of vLex and Vincent AI, Your Precision-Engineered Legal Assistant
-
Access comprehensive legal content with no limitations across vLex's unparalleled global legal database
-
Build stronger arguments with verified citations and CERT citator that tracks case history and precedential strength
-
Transform your legal research from hours to minutes with Vincent AI's intelligent search and analysis capabilities
-
Elevate your practice by focusing your expertise where it matters most while Vincent handles the heavy lifting

Start Your 3-day Free Trial of vLex and Vincent AI, Your Precision-Engineered Legal Assistant
-
Access comprehensive legal content with no limitations across vLex's unparalleled global legal database
-
Build stronger arguments with verified citations and CERT citator that tracks case history and precedential strength
-
Transform your legal research from hours to minutes with Vincent AI's intelligent search and analysis capabilities
-
Elevate your practice by focusing your expertise where it matters most while Vincent handles the heavy lifting

Start Your 3-day Free Trial of vLex and Vincent AI, Your Precision-Engineered Legal Assistant
-
Access comprehensive legal content with no limitations across vLex's unparalleled global legal database
-
Build stronger arguments with verified citations and CERT citator that tracks case history and precedential strength
-
Transform your legal research from hours to minutes with Vincent AI's intelligent search and analysis capabilities
-
Elevate your practice by focusing your expertise where it matters most while Vincent handles the heavy lifting

Start Your 7-day Trial
- People v. Gonzales
-
Furrukh v. Forest Hills Hosp.
...477). The plaintiffs failed to demonstrate a justifiable excuse for their delay and default ( see Bhatti v. Empire 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;Fenner v. County of Nassau, 80 A.D.3d 555, 556, 914 N.Y.S......
-
U.S. Bank v. Razon
... ... Registration Sys., Inc. v. Smith, 111 A.D.3d 804, 806, 975 N.Y.S.2d 121;Dupps v ... ...
-
Element E, LLC v. Allyson Enters., Inc.
...139 A.D.3d 989, 32 N.Y.S.3d 312 ; Dai Mang Kim v. Hwak Yung Kim, 118 A.D.3d 661, 661, 987 N.Y.S.2d 418 ; Bhatti v. Empire Realty Assoc., Inc., 101 A.D.3d 1066, 1067, 956 N.Y.S.2d 557 ), henceforth they should no longer be followed. Notably, the order purporting to be a 90–day demand was iss......