Jedraszak v. Cnty. of Westchester

• Court: New York Supreme Court Appellate Division
• Writing for the Court: DANIEL D. ANGIOLILLO
• Citation: 2013 N.Y. Slip Op. 00458,958 N.Y.S.2d 490,102 A.D.3d 924
• Parties: Marie JEDRASZAK, et al., appellants, v. COUNTY OF WESTCHESTER, et al., respondents.
• Decision Date: 30 January 2013

102 A.D.3d 924
958 N.Y.S.2d 490
2013 N.Y. Slip Op. 00458

Marie JEDRASZAK, et al., appellants,
v.
COUNTY OF WESTCHESTER, et al., respondents.

Supreme Court, Appellate Division, Second Department, New York.

Jan. 30, 2013.

Cohen, LaBarbera & Landrigan, LLP, Goshen, N.Y. (Juliana O'Grady of counsel), for appellants.

Wilson, Bave, Conboy, Cozza & Couzens, White Plains, N.Y. (Claudine L. Weis of counsel), for respondents County of Westchester and Westchester County Medical Center.

Rende, Ryan & Downes, LLP, White Plains, N.Y. (Roland T. Koke of counsel), for respondent Pradip K. Mishra.

DANIEL D. ANGIOLILLO, J.P., JOHN M. LEVENTHAL, PLUMMER E. LOTT, and LEONARD B. AUSTIN, JJ.

[102 A.D.3d 924]In an action to recover damages for medical malpractice, etc., the plaintiffs appeal from an order of the Supreme Court, Westchester County (Giacomo, J.), entered May 7, 2012, which granted the motion of the defendant Pradip K. Mishra, and the separate motion of the defendants County of Westchester and Westchester County Medical Center pursuant to CPLR 3216 to dismiss the complaint insofar as asserted against each of them for failure to prosecute.

ORDERED that the order is affirmed, with one bill of costs payable to the defendants appearing separately and filing separate briefs.

Having received valid 90–day notices from the defendants, the plaintiffs were required either to serve and file a timely note of [102 A.D.3d 925]issue, or move before the default date to either vacate the demands or to extend the 90–day period pursuant to CPLR 2004 ( see Garcia v. North Shore Long Island Jewish Forest Hills Hosp., 98 A.D.3d 644, 645, 949 N.Y.S.2d 781;Saginor v. Brook, 92 A.D.3d 860, 860, 939 N.Y.S.2d 124;

[958 N.Y.S.2d 491]

Cope v. Barakaat, 89 A.D.3d 670, 931 N.Y.S.2d 910;Sanchez v. Serje, 78 A.D.3d 1155, 1156, 913 N.Y.S.2d 919;Picot v. City of New York, 50 A.D.3d 757, 758, 855 N.Y.S.2d 237). The plaintiffs failed to respond to either of the 90–day notices.

In response to the defendants' separate motions to dismiss the complaint for failure to prosecute, the plaintiffs, in order to avoid dismissal, were required to demonstrate that there was a justifiable excuse for their delay and that they had a potentially meritorious cause of action ( seeCPLR 3216[e]; Umeze v. Fidelis Care New York, 17 N.Y.3d 751, 751, 929 N.Y.S.2d 67, 952 N.E.2d 1060;Baczkowski v. Collins Constr. Co., 89 N.Y.2d 499, 504, 655 N.Y.S.2d 848, 678 N.E.2d 460;Colon v. Papatolis, 95 A.D.3d 1160, 1160, 943 N.Y.S.2d...