Lauri v. Freeport Union Free Sch. Dist.

CourtNew York Supreme Court Appellate Division
Writing for the CourtPETER B. SKELOS
Citation78 A.D.3d 1130,912 N.Y.S.2d 278
Decision Date30 November 2010
PartiesTeri LAURI, etc., et al., respondents, v. FREEPORT UNION FREE SCHOOL DISTRICT, et al., appellants.
912 N.Y.S.2d 278
78 A.D.3d 1130


Teri LAURI, etc., et al., respondents,
v.
FREEPORT UNION FREE SCHOOL DISTRICT, et al., appellants.


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

Nov. 30, 2010.

912 N.Y.S.2d 279

Congdon, Flaherty, O'Callaghan, Reid, Donlon, Travis & Fishlinger, Uniondale, N.Y. (Christine Gasser of counsel), for appellants.

Curtis, Vasile, Merrick, N.Y. (Dominick A. Piccininni, Jr., of counsel), for respondent.

PETER B. SKELOS, J.P., RUTH C. BALKIN, RANDALL T. ENG, and LEONARD B. AUSTIN, JJ.

78 A.D.3d 1130

In an action to recover damages for personal injuries, etc., the defendants appeal from an order of the Supreme Court, Nassau County (Mahon, J.), dated October 9, 2009, which denied their motion pursuant to CPLR 3216 to dismiss the complaint for failure to prosecute, and granted those branches of the plaintiffs' cross motion which were to extend their time to serve and file a note of issue, and to vacate the defendants' 90-day notice.

ORDERED that the order is affirmed, with costs.

CPLR 3216 is an "extremely forgiving" statute ( Baczkowski v. Collins Constr. Co., 89 N.Y.2d 499, 503, 655 N.Y.S.2d 848, 678 N.E.2d 460), which "never requires, but merely authorizes, the Supreme Court to dismiss a plaintiff's action based on the plaintiff's unreasonable neglect to proceed" ( Davis v. Goodsell, 6 A.D.3d 382, 383, 774 N.Y.S.2d 568; see Di Simone v. Good Samaritan Hosp., 100 N.Y.2d 632, 633, 768 N.Y.S.2d 735, 800 N.E.2d 1102; Gibson v. Fakheri, 77 A.D.3d 619, 908 N.Y.S.2d 356; Ferrera v. Esposit, 66 A.D.3d 637, 638, 886 N.Y.S.2d 757). Moreover, the statute prohibits the Supreme Court from dismissing a complaint based on failure to prosecute whenever the plaintiff has shown a justifiable excuse for the delay and the existence of a potentially meritorious cause of action ( see CPLR 3216[e]; Di Simone v. Good Samaritan Hosp., 100 N.Y.2d at 633, 768 N.Y.S.2d 735, 800 N.E.2d 1102; Gibson v. Fakheri, 77 A.D.3d 619, 908 N.Y.S.2d 356; Ferrera v. Esposit, 66 A.D.3d at 638, 886 N.Y.S.2d 757).

Here, the plaintiffs presented a justifiable excuse for both their failure to timely respond to the defendants' 90-day notice and their delay in prosecuting this action through the affirmation of their attorney, who explained in detail that the delay was the result of a combination of both law office failure and his own health and personal issues ( see Di Simone v. Good Samaritan Hosp., 100 N.Y.2d at 633-634, 768 N.Y.S.2d 735, 800 N.E.2d 1102; ...

To continue reading

Request your trial
7 practice notes
  • In re Devon A.
    • United States
    • New York Supreme Court Appellate Division
    • November 30, 2010
    ...427, 432, 813 N.Y.S.2d 31, 846 N.E.2d 461). Accordingly, the notice and hearing requirements of CPL 710.30 were inapplicable ( id.; cf. 912 N.Y.S.2d 278People v. DeJesus, 19 A.D.3d 705, 797 N.Y.S.2d 297; People v. Polk, 284 A.D.2d 416, 728 N.Y.S.2d 171). The Family Court properly denied the......
  • Atterberry v. Serlin
    • United States
    • New York Supreme Court Appellate Division
    • June 21, 2011
    ...delay in making this motion and a potentially meritorious cause of action ( see CPLR 2005; Lauri v. Freeport Union Free School Dist., 78 A.D.3d 1130, 912 N.Y.S.2d 278; Goldstein v. Meadows Redevelopment Co Owners Corp. I, 46 A.D.3d 509, 510, 846 N.Y.S.2d 384; Diaz v. Yuan, 28 A.D.3d 603, 81......
  • Malcolm v. Rite Aid of N.Y., Inc.
    • United States
    • New York Supreme Court Appellate Division
    • November 21, 2012
    ...demonstrated a potentially meritorious cause of action ( id. at 635, 948 N.Y.S.2d 627;see Lauri v. Freeport Union Free School Dist., 78 A.D.3d 1130, 912 N.Y.S.2d 278). These determinations, combined with the fact that the defendants claimed no prejudice and the lack of evidence of a pattern......
  • Piszczatowski v. Hill
    • United States
    • New York Supreme Court Appellate Division
    • March 13, 2012
    ...N.Y.S.2d 735, 800 N.E.2d 1102; Atterberry v. Serlin & Serlin, 85 A.D.3d 949, 925 N.Y.S.2d 860; Lauri v. Freeport Union Free School Dist., 78 A.D.3d 1130, 912 N.Y.S.2d 278). Furthermore, there is no evidence in the record of a pattern of persistent neglect and delay in prosecuting the action......
  • Request a trial to view additional results
7 cases
  • In re Devon A.
    • United States
    • New York Supreme Court Appellate Division
    • November 30, 2010
    ...427, 432, 813 N.Y.S.2d 31, 846 N.E.2d 461). Accordingly, the notice and hearing requirements of CPL 710.30 were inapplicable ( id.; cf. 912 N.Y.S.2d 278People v. DeJesus, 19 A.D.3d 705, 797 N.Y.S.2d 297; People v. Polk, 284 A.D.2d 416, 728 N.Y.S.2d 171). The Family Court properly denied the......
  • Atterberry v. Serlin
    • United States
    • New York Supreme Court Appellate Division
    • June 21, 2011
    ...delay in making this motion and a potentially meritorious cause of action ( see CPLR 2005; Lauri v. Freeport Union Free School Dist., 78 A.D.3d 1130, 912 N.Y.S.2d 278; Goldstein v. Meadows Redevelopment Co Owners Corp. I, 46 A.D.3d 509, 510, 846 N.Y.S.2d 384; Diaz v. Yuan, 28 A.D.3d 603, 81......
  • Malcolm v. Rite Aid of N.Y., Inc.
    • United States
    • New York Supreme Court Appellate Division
    • November 21, 2012
    ...demonstrated a potentially meritorious cause of action ( id. at 635, 948 N.Y.S.2d 627;see Lauri v. Freeport Union Free School Dist., 78 A.D.3d 1130, 912 N.Y.S.2d 278). These determinations, combined with the fact that the defendants claimed no prejudice and the lack of evidence of a pattern......
  • Piszczatowski v. Hill
    • United States
    • New York Supreme Court Appellate Division
    • March 13, 2012
    ...N.Y.S.2d 735, 800 N.E.2d 1102; Atterberry v. Serlin & Serlin, 85 A.D.3d 949, 925 N.Y.S.2d 860; Lauri v. Freeport Union Free School Dist., 78 A.D.3d 1130, 912 N.Y.S.2d 278). Furthermore, there is no evidence in the record of a pattern of persistent neglect and delay in prosecuting the action......
  • Request a trial to view additional results

VLEX uses login cookies to provide you with a better browsing experience. If you click on 'Accept' or continue browsing this site we consider that you accept our cookie policy. ACCEPT