Burke v. Klein
| Decision Date | 07 February 2000 |
| Citation | 269 A.D.2d 348,703 N.Y.S.2d 203 |
| Parties | PATRICIA BURKE et al., Respondents,<BR>v.<BR>VICTOR KLEIN, Appellant. |
| Court | New York Supreme Court — Appellate Division |
Ordered that the order is reversed, on the law, with costs, the motion is granted, the cross motion is denied, and the complaint is dismissed.
To avoid a default after receipt of the 90-day demand pursuant to CPLR 3216, the plaintiffs were required to comply therewith either by timely filing a note of issue or by moving, before the default date, to vacate the notice or to extend the 90-day period (see, Pollucci v Rizzo, 261 AD2d 594; Rubin v Baglio, 234 AD2d 534; Lopez v Pathmark Supermarket, 229 AD2d 566). Having failed to do so, the plaintiffs, to avoid dismissal, were required to demonstrate a justifiable excuse for the delay in properly responding to the demand and the existence of a meritorious claim (see, Hayden v Jones, 244 AD2d 316). Were this Court to excuse the delay premised upon law office failure, the plaintiffs still had to show the meritorious nature of their malpractice claim alleging that the defendant negligently performed the Caesarean operation. That issue is not a matter within the ordinary experience of laypersons (see, Mosberg v Elahi, 80 NY2d 941; Fiore v Galang, 64 NY2d 999), and the injured plaintiff failed to submit her own affidavit and an affidavit of merit by a medical expert competent to attest to the meritorious nature of her claim. Accordingly, the complaint must be dismissed.
To continue reading
Request your trial
-
Cope v. Barakaat
...the plaintiff failed to submit any affidavit of merit ( see Picot v. City of New York, 50 A.D.3d 757, 855 N.Y.S.2d 237; Burke v. Klein, 269 A.D.2d 348, 348–349, 703 N.Y.S.2d 203). The proposed amended complaint submitted in opposition to [89 A.D.3d 672] Awosika's motion pursuant to CPLR 321......
-
Dominguez v. Jamaica Med. Ctr.
...60 N.Y.2d 851, 852, 470 N.Y.S.2d 138, 458 N.E.2d 379; Picot v. City of New York, 50 A.D.3d 757, 855 N.Y.S.2d 237; Burke v. Klein, 269 A.D.2d 348, 703 N.Y.S.2d 203; Evans v. Kringstein,193 A.D.2d 714, 598 N.Y.S.2d 64). Accordingly, the plaintiff's motion to extend the time to serve and file ......
-
King v. Dobriner
...80 N.Y.2d 941, 590 N.Y.S.2d 866, 605 N.E.2d 353;Jedraszak v. County of Westchester, 102 A.D.3d 924, 925, 958 N.Y.S.2d 490;Burke v. Klein, 269 A.D.2d 348, 703 N.Y.S.2d 203; [966 N.Y.S.2d 164]Nepomniaschi v. Goldstein, 182 A.D.2d 743, 582 N.Y.S.2d 761). It was improper for the plaintiff to su......
-
Biggs v. Mary Immaculate Hosp.
...or to extend the 90-day period" (Rubin v Baglio, 234 A.D.2d 534 [citations omitted]; see, Basso v Lessing's Inc., 274 A.D.2d 488; Burke v Klein, 269 A.D.2d 348). Here, where the plaintiff timely moved to vacate the 90-day notices, the Supreme Court erred in granting the motions to dismiss t......