Brady v. Benenson Capital Co.
Decision Date | 01 December 2003 |
Docket Number | 2002-11191. |
Citation | 767 N.Y.S.2d 787,2 A.D.3d 382,2003 NY Slip Op 19201 |
Parties | MICHAEL BRADY, Appellant, v. BENENSON CAPITAL CO. et al., Respondents. (And a Third-Party Action.) |
Court | New York Supreme Court — Appellate Division |
Ordered that the order is affirmed, with one bill of costs payable to the respondents appearing separately and filing separate briefs.
Where a party is served with a 90-day notice pursuant to CPLR 3216, it is incumbent upon that party to comply with the notice by filing a note of issue or by moving, before the default date, either to vacate the notice or extend the 90-day period (see Hayden v Jones, 244 AD2d 316 [1997]; Rubin v Baglio, 234 AD2d 534 [1996]; Lopez v Pathmark Supermarket, 229 AD2d 566 [1996]; Spierto v Pennisi, 223 AD2d 537 [1996]). Once the specified period has expired, the party wishing to avoid dismissal must demonstrate both a justifiable excuse for the delay in properly responding to the 90-day notice and the existence of a meritorious cause of action (see CPLR 3216 [e]; Hayden v Jones, supra; Turman v Amity OBG Assoc., 170 AD2d 668 [1991]; Papadopoulas v R.B. Supply Corp., 152 AD2d 552 [1989]). Here, the plaintiff failed to demonstrate either a justifiable excuse for the delay or the existence of a meritorious cause of action.
To continue reading
Request your trial-
Cadichon v. Facelle
...were required to either seek an extension to comply with the 90-day notice, move to vacate the same ( Brady v. Benenson Capital Co., 2 A.D.3d 382, 382, 767 N.Y.S.2d 787 [2003], lv. denied 2 N.Y.3d 702, 778 N.Y.S.2d 460, 810 N.E.2d 913 [2004] ) or file a note of issue (CPLR 3216[b] [3] ). Pl......
- Blangiardo v. Blangiardo