Garcia v. Roopnarine
| Decision Date | 16 May 2005 |
| Docket Number | 2004-06250. |
| Citation | 18 A.D.3d 607,795 N.Y.S.2d 611,2005 NY Slip Op 03997 |
| Parties | ADELAIDA GARCIA, Appellant, v. SEWGOBIND ROOPNARINE, Respondent. |
| Court | New York Supreme Court — Appellate Division |
Ordered that the order is affirmed, with costs.
Having received a 90-day notice pursuant to CPLR 3216 and having failed to comply with the notice by filing a note of issue or by moving, before the default date, either to vacate the notice or to extend the 90-day period, the plaintiff was required to demonstrate both a reasonable excuse for the default and the existence of a meritorious cause of action (see Allen v Makhnevich, 15 AD3d 425, 426 [2005]; Tietz v Blatt, 280 AD2d 469 [2001]; Basso v Lessings Inc., 274 AD2d 488, 489 [2000]). The plaintiff failed to provide a reasonable excuse for her default in complying with the 90-day notice (see Palermo v County of Nassau, 266 AD2d 365, 366 [1999]; Guang Jing Chen v Goldstein, 246 AD2d 407, 408 [1998]). Furthermore, the plaintiff failed to provide a showing of merit by one with personal knowledge of the facts (see Tietz v Blatt, supra; Duqmaq v Stewart, 137 AD2d 653 [1988]; cf. Salch v Paratore, 60 NY2d 851 [1983]). Accordingly, the Supreme Court providently exercised its discretion in denying the plaintiff's motion to vacate her default in complying with the 90-day notice and to restore the action to the trial calendar, and in granting the defendant's cross motion to dismiss the complaint.
To continue reading
Request your trial
-
Selletti v. Liotti
...Dept. 2008); Randolph v. Cornell, 29 A.D.3d 557 (2nd Dept.2006); Sharpe v. Osorio, 21 A.D.3d 467(2nd Dept. 2005); Garcia v. Roopnarine, 18 A.D.3d 607 (2nd Dept. 2005); see, also, Frazzetta v. P.C. Celano Contracting, 54 A.D.3d 806 (2nd Dept. 2008); Aquilar v. Nassau Health Care Corp., 40 A.......
-
Colon v. Papatolis
...Care N.Y., 17 N.Y.3d 751, 929 N.Y.S.2d 67, 952 N.E.2d 1060; Sharpe v. Osorio, 21 A.D.3d 467, 468, 800 N.Y.S.2d 213; Garcia v. Roopnarine, 18 A.D.3d 607, 795 N.Y.S.2d 611; Tietz v. Blatt, 280 A.D.2d 469, 720 N.Y.S.2d 373). Accordingly, the appellants' motion pursuant to CPLR 3216 to dismiss ......
- Friedman v. Stauber, 2004-03352.