Carte v. Segall
| Decision Date | 16 November 1987 |
| Citation | 134 A.D.2d 397,520 N.Y.S.2d 944 |
| Parties | Ilene CARTE, et al., Respondents, v. Irwin SEGALL, Appellant, et al., Defendants. |
| Court | New York Supreme Court — Appellate Division |
Scheinberg, Schneps, DePetris & DePetris, Riverhead (Murray B. Schneps, of counsel), for appellant.
George David Rosenbaum, New York City (Elan Wurtzel and Nicholas J. Panzini, of counsel), for respondents.
Before MANGANO, J.P., and THOMPSON, LAWRENCE and KUNZEMAN, JJ.
MEMORANDUM BY THE COURT.
In a medical malpractice action to recover damages for personal injuries, etc., the defendant Segall appeals, as limited by his brief, from so much of an order of the Supreme Court, Kings County (Bellard, J.), dated May 2, 1986, as (1) granted the plaintiffs' motion to vacate a 90-day notice served upon them by the appellant and for an extension of the period within which to file a note of issue, and (2) denied his cross motion pursuant to CPLR 3216 for an order dismissing the action for want of prosecution.
ORDERED that the order is affirmed insofar as appealed from, with costs.
This action, arising from the defendant Segall's allegedly negligent treatment of the plaintiff Ilene Carte in December 1978 through January 1979 was commenced in July 1981. Issue was joined in October of that year, and simultaneously therewith, the appellant served upon the plaintiffs various discovery demands. During the three-year period which followed, the appellant's demands were only partly complied with. Discovery proceedings were essentially stalled as the result of the dereliction of both the plaintiffs' original counsel, who was in the midst of disbarment proceedings and who was ultimately disbarred, and of counsel to whom the case was referred, who apparently performed no work on the matter and who returned it to the original attorney of record after nearly one year had elapsed. It was not until the plaintiffs' present attorney was substituted that discovery proceeded.
In November 1985 the appellant's counsel served a 90-day notice on the plaintiffs' counsel pursuant to CPLR 3216. The plaintiffs' counsel thereafter made what appears to have been genuine attempts to comply with outstanding discovery requests and advised his adversary that "the plaintiff [sic ] has not abandoned this matter, and that we will take all steps to further the prosecution of this matter".
By order to show cause dated February 3, 1986, the plaintiffs moved pursuant to CPLR 2004 to vacate the 90-day notice and/or to extend the period of time for them to serve and file a note of issue because they were prevented, by the rule requiring that a certificate of readiness accompany a note of issue (see, 22 NYCRR 202.21), from filing a note of issue. By notice of cross motion dated February 14, 1986, the appellant cross-moved pursuant to CPLR 3216 to dismiss the action for failure to prosecute. The plaintiffs' motion was granted and the appellant's cross motion was denied.
CPLR 3216 provides a party confronted with a less than diligent adversary with a means to expedite the prosecution of the action by serving upon him a written demand that he file a note of issue within 90 days, or, in the event of a default, risk dismissal of the action. In order to avoid a default, a plaintiff served with a 90-day notice must comply either by timely...
To continue reading
Request your trial
-
Gross v. Johnson
...v. Komazenski, 252 A.D.2d 731, 732, 675 N.Y.S.2d 393;Nan Su Paek v. In Chul Song, 158 A.D.2d 321, 551 N.Y.S.2d 8;Carte v. Segall, 134 A.D.2d 397, 398, 520 N.Y.S.2d 944). The defendant also demonstrated a reasonable excuse for her failure to appear at her deposition by the date set forth in ......
-
Martinisi v. Cornwall Hosp.
...the 90-day notice or ask the court to extend it (see, Meth v. Maimonides Med. Center, 99 A.D.2d 799, 472 N.Y.S.2d 134; Carte v. Segall, 134 A.D.2d 397, 520 N.Y.S.2d 944). Under these circumstances, the majority's acceptance of the plaintiff's claim of "inattention" or distraction due to the......
-
N.Y. Timber, LLC v. Seneca Cos.
...v. Brooklyn Union Gas Co.,212 A.D.2d 497, 623 N.Y.S.2d 2; Markarian v. Hundert,180 A.D.2d 780, 781, 580 N.Y.S.2d 428; Carte v. Segall,134 A.D.2d 397, 398, 520 N.Y.S.2d 944).Moreover, the Supreme Court providently exercised its discretion in denying the defendant's cross motion pursuant to C......
-
Tolkoff v. Goldstein
...contention is without merit (see generally Grant v. City of New York, 17 A.D.3d 215, 216–217, 793 N.Y.S.2d 35 ; Carte v. Segall, 134 A.D.2d 397, 398, 520 N.Y.S.2d 944 ).Accordingly, we reverse the judgments and, to the extent reviewable, the order, deny the defendants' separate motions to d......