Huger v. Cushman & Wakefield, Inc.
Decision Date | 20 January 2009 |
Docket Number | 2007-10061. |
Citation | 2009 NY Slip Op 00344,58 A.D.3d 682,871 N.Y.S.2d 669 |
Parties | STEVE HUGER et al., Appellants, v. CUSHMAN & WAKEFIELD, INC., Defendant and Third-Party Plaintiff-Respondent, and MELI BORRELLI ASSOCIATES et al., Respondents. NASTASI WHITE INC., Third-Party Defendant-Respondent. |
Court | New York Supreme Court — Appellate Division |
Ordered that one bill of costs is awarded to the respondents appearing separately and filing separate briefs.
Initially, we note that the plaintiffs' appeal is limited by their notice of appeal to so much of the order as granted that branch of the cross motion of the third-party defendant which was to dismiss the complaint pursuant to CPLR 3216. Given the limited scope of the plaintiffs' notice of appeal, their contentions concerning the Supreme Court's denial of their motion are not properly before this Court (see Uzzle v Nunzie Ct. Homeowners Assn., Inc., 55 AD3d 723 [2008]; City of Mount Vernon v Mount Vernon Hous. Auth., 235 AD2d 516 [1997]).
The Supreme Court correctly granted that branch of the third-party defendant's cross motion which was to dismiss the complaint pursuant to CPLR 3216. CPLR 3216 (a) provides that the court may dismiss a party's pleading where the party unreasonably fails to serve and file a note of issue. Certain conditions precedent to dismissal must be met, including that one year has elapsed since joinder of issue, and that the court or the party seeking such relief has served a written demand for the serving and filing of the note of issue within 90 days (see CPLR 3216 [b]). In the event that the party on whom the demand is served fails to serve and file a note of issue within the prescribed time, the court may dismiss that party's pleading unless that party shows "a justifiable excuse for the delay and a good and meritorious cause of action" (CPLR 3216 [e]). Here, the excuses tendered by the plaintiffs failed to adequately explain their failure to timely serve and file a note of issue.
A compliance conference order dated January 8, 2004, which warned the plaintiffs that the failure to serve and file a note of issue would result in dismissal of the action, had the same effect as a valid 90-day notice pursuant to CPLR 3216 (see Benitez v Mutual of Am. Life Ins. Co., 24 AD3d 708 [2005]; Giannoccoli v One Cent. Park W. Assoc., 15 AD3d 348 [2005]; Betty v City of New York, 12 AD3d 472 [2004]; Wechsler v First Unum Life Ins. Co., 295 AD2d 340 [2002]). Contrary to the plaintiffs' contention, neither that order, nor the order dated December 12, 2005 which extended the deadline for the filing of the note of issue, mandated that all discovery be complete prior to the serving and filing of the note of issue. Accordingly, even if the defendants engaged in dilatory conduct in responding to ...
To continue reading
Request your trial-
Dominguez v. Jamaica Med. Ctr.
...also been met ( see Michaels v. Sunrise Bldg. & Remodeling, Inc., 65 A.D.3d 1021, 1022, 885 N.Y.S.2d 110; Huger v. Cushman & Wakefield, Inc., 58 A.D.3d 682, 683, 871 N.Y.S.2d 669). Having received a 90-day notice, the plaintiff was required either to serve and file a timely note of issue or......
-
Griffith v. Wray
...pursuant to CPLR 3216. This order had the same effect as a valid 90–day notice pursuant to CPLR 3216 ( see Huger v. Cushman & Wakefield, Inc., 58 A.D.3d 682, 684, 871 N.Y.S.2d 669;cf. Neary v. Tower Ins., 94 A.D.3d 723, 724, 941 N.Y.S.2d 277;Tolmasova v. Umarova, 90 A.D.3d 1028, 934 N.Y.S.2......
-
Paterno v. Carroll
...as a result of their alleged failure to comply with discovery orders is not properly before this Court ( see Huger v. Cushman & Wakefield, 58 A.D.3d 682, 683, 871 N.Y.S.2d 669; Village of Croton-on-Hudson v. Northeast Interchange Ry., LLC, 46 A.D.3d 546, 548, 846 N.Y.S.2d 606; City of Mount......
-
Garcia v. N. Shore Long Island Jewish Forest Hills Hosp.
...did not constitute a reasonable excuse for the plaintiff's failure to respond to the 90–day demands ( see Huger v. Cushman & Wakefield, Inc., 58 A.D.3d 682, 684, 871 N.Y.S.2d 669;McKinney v. Corby, 295 A.D.2d 580, 744 N.Y.S.2d 882;Papadopoulas v. R.B. Supply Corp., 152 A.D.2d 552, 543 N.Y.S......