Bhatti v. Empire Realty Assocs., Inc.
| Court | New York Supreme Court Appellate Division |
| Writing for the Court | WILLIAM F. MASTRO |
| 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. |
| Decision Date | 26 December 2012 |
101 A.D.3d 1066
956 N.Y.S.2d 557
2012 N.Y. Slip Op. 09018
Noor BHATTI, etc., et al., respondents,
v.
EMPIRE REALTY ASSOCIATES, INC., et al., appellants.
Supreme Court, Appellate Division, Second Department, New York.
Dec. 26, 2012.
[956 N.Y.S.2d 558]
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.
[101 A.D.3d 1067]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 ( 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, for an extension of time pursuant to CPLR 2004 ( see Stallone 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 ( see Shcherbina 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, ...
To continue reading
Request your trial
-
People v. Gonzales
...(CPL 60.22[1] ). Under that standard, “[a]ll that is necessary is to connect the defendant with the crime in such a way that the jury [956 N.Y.S.2d 557]may be reasonably satisfied that the accomplice is telling the truth” ( People v. Daniels, 37 N.Y.2d 624, 630, 376 N.Y.S.2d 436, 339 N.E.2d......
-
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
...572]the notice of pendency ( see HSBC Bank USA, N.A. v. Taher, 104 A.D.3d at 817, 962 N.Y.S.2d 301;Aurora Loan Servs., LLC. v. Sobanke, 101 A.D.3d at 1066, 957 N.Y.S.2d 379;Bank of Am., N.A. v. Bah, 95 A.D.3d 1150, 1151–1152, 945 N.Y.S.2d 704). The Supreme Court also erred in denying the pl......
-
Element E, LLC v. Allyson Enters., Inc., 2017–04328
...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 issued at a ti......
-
People v. Gonzales
...(CPL 60.22[1] ). Under that standard, “[a]ll that is necessary is to connect the defendant with the crime in such a way that the jury [956 N.Y.S.2d 557]may be reasonably satisfied that the accomplice is telling the truth” ( People v. Daniels, 37 N.Y.2d 624, 630, 376 N.Y.S.2d 436, 339 N.E.2d......
-
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
...572]the notice of pendency ( see HSBC Bank USA, N.A. v. Taher, 104 A.D.3d at 817, 962 N.Y.S.2d 301;Aurora Loan Servs., LLC. v. Sobanke, 101 A.D.3d at 1066, 957 N.Y.S.2d 379;Bank of Am., N.A. v. Bah, 95 A.D.3d 1150, 1151–1152, 945 N.Y.S.2d 704). The Supreme Court also erred in denying the pl......
-
Element E, LLC v. Allyson Enters., Inc., 2017–04328
...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 issued at a ti......