Picot v. City of New York, 2007-01524.

CourtNew York Supreme Court Appellate Division
Citation2008 NY Slip Op 03185,50 A.D.3d 757,855 N.Y.S.2d 237
Docket Number2007-01524.
PartiesCLEOMIE PICOT, Appellant, v. CITY OF NEW YORK et al., Defendants, and NEW YORK CITY HEALTH AND HOSPITALS CORPORATION et al., Respondents.
Decision Date08 April 2008
50 A.D.3d 757
855 N.Y.S.2d 237
2008 NY Slip Op 03185
CLEOMIE PICOT, Appellant,
v.
CITY OF NEW YORK et al., Defendants, and
NEW YORK CITY HEALTH AND HOSPITALS CORPORATION et al., Respondents.
2007-01524.
Appellate Division of the Supreme Court of the State of New York, Second Department.
Decided April 8, 2008.

In an action, inter alia, to recover damages for medical malpractice and lack of informed consent, the plaintiff appeals from an order of the Supreme Court, Kings County (Jackson, J.), dated December 15, 2006, which granted the motion of the defendants New York City Health and Hospitals Corporation, Coney Island Hospital, and Teresa Brevetti pursuant to CPLR 3216 to dismiss the complaint insofar as asserted against them for failure to prosecute.


Ordered that the order is affirmed, with costs.

Having been served with a 90-day notice pursuant to CPLR 3216, the plaintiff was required to file a note of issue in compliance with the notice or to move, before the default date, either to vacate the notice or to extend the 90-day period (see Sharpe v Osorio, 21 AD3d 467, 468 [2005]; Walters v Hoboken Wood Flooring Corp., 6 AD3d 696, 697 [2004]). The plaintiff attempted to file a note of issue before the default date, but the note of issue was properly rejected by the Supreme Court because she failed to file a request for judicial intervention (see 22 NYCRR 202.6 [a]). Since the plaintiff failed to properly respond to the 90-day

notice within the allotted period of time, in order to avoid dismissal she was required to demonstrate both a justifiable excuse for the delay and the existence of a meritorious cause of action (see CPLR 3216 [e]; Estate of Hamilton v Nassau Suffolk Home Health Care, 1 AD3d 474 [2003]; Aguilar v Knutson, 296 AD2d 562 [2002]; Werbin v Locicero, 287 AD2d 617, 618 [2001]). The plaintiff's excuse for her failure to comply with the 90-day notice was inadequate and she offered no excuse for her inordinate delay in the prosecution of this action (see Baczkowski v Collins Constr. Co., 89 NY2d 499, 504-505 [1997]; Ovchinnikov v Joyce Owners Corp., 43 AD3d 1124, 1126-1127 [2007]; Salerno v Presbyterian Hosp. in City of N.Y. at Columbia Presbyt. Med. Ctr., 88 AD2d 637, 638 [1982]). Furthermore, the plaintiff failed to submit evidentiary proof in admissible form sufficient to demonstrate the existence of a meritorious cause of action (see Mosberg v Elahi, 80 NY2d 941, 942 [1992]; Salch v Paratore, 60 NY2d 851, 852...

To continue reading

Request your trial
19 practice notes
  • Byers v. Winthrop Univ. Hosp., Index No.: 17533/07
    • United States
    • United States State Supreme Court (New York)
    • June 29, 2011
    ...869 (2d Dept. 2010); Frazzetta v. P.C. Celano Contracting, 54 A.D.3d 806, 864 N.Y.S.2d 482 (2d Dept. 2008); Picot v. City of New York, 50 A.D.3d 757, 855 N.Y.S.2d 237 (2d Dept. 2008); Serby v. Long Island Jewish Medical Center, 34 A.D.3d 441, 824 N.Y.S.2d 119 (2d Dept. 2006). The requiremen......
  • Cope v. Barakaat
    • United States
    • New York Supreme Court Appellate Division
    • November 1, 2011
    ...cause of action ( see CPLR 3216[e]; Dominguez v. Jamaica Med. Ctr., 72 A.D.3d 876, 898 N.Y.S.2d 869; Picot v. City of New York, 50 A.D.3d 757, 757–758, 855 N.Y.S.2d 237; Serby v. Long Is. Jewish Med. Ctr., 34 A.D.3d 441, 824 N.Y.S.2d 119). The plaintiff failed to tender a justifiable excuse......
  • Dominguez v. Jamaica Med. Ctr.
    • United States
    • New York Supreme Court Appellate Division
    • April 20, 2010
    ...the plaintiff was required to show a justifiable excuse for the delay and a meritorious cause of action ( see Picot v. City of New York, 50 A.D.3d 757, 855 N.Y.S.2d 237; Serby v. Long Is. Jewish Med. Ctr., 34 A.D.3d 441, 824 N.Y.S.2d 119; Matter of Hamilton v. Nassau Suffolk Home Health Car......
  • Griffith v. Wray
    • United States
    • New York Supreme Court Appellate Division
    • August 14, 2013
    ...the sanction of dismissal ( see CPLR 3216[e]; Dominguez v. Jamaica Med. Ctr., 72 A.D.3d 876, 898 N.Y.S.2d 869;Picot v. City of New York, 50 A.D.3d 757, 758, 855 N.Y.S.2d 237;McKinney v. Corby, 295 A.D.2d at 581, 744 N.Y.S.2d 882;Flomenhaft v. Baron, 281 A.D.2d 389, 721 N.Y.S.2d 381). In ren......
  • Request a trial to view additional results
19 cases
  • Byers v. Winthrop Univ. Hosp., Index No.: 17533/07
    • United States
    • United States State Supreme Court (New York)
    • June 29, 2011
    ...869 (2d Dept. 2010); Frazzetta v. P.C. Celano Contracting, 54 A.D.3d 806, 864 N.Y.S.2d 482 (2d Dept. 2008); Picot v. City of New York, 50 A.D.3d 757, 855 N.Y.S.2d 237 (2d Dept. 2008); Serby v. Long Island Jewish Medical Center, 34 A.D.3d 441, 824 N.Y.S.2d 119 (2d Dept. 2006). The requiremen......
  • Cope v. Barakaat
    • United States
    • New York Supreme Court Appellate Division
    • November 1, 2011
    ...cause of action ( see CPLR 3216[e]; Dominguez v. Jamaica Med. Ctr., 72 A.D.3d 876, 898 N.Y.S.2d 869; Picot v. City of New York, 50 A.D.3d 757, 757–758, 855 N.Y.S.2d 237; Serby v. Long Is. Jewish Med. Ctr., 34 A.D.3d 441, 824 N.Y.S.2d 119). The plaintiff failed to tender a justifiable excuse......
  • Dominguez v. Jamaica Med. Ctr.
    • United States
    • New York Supreme Court Appellate Division
    • April 20, 2010
    ...the plaintiff was required to show a justifiable excuse for the delay and a meritorious cause of action ( see Picot v. City of New York, 50 A.D.3d 757, 855 N.Y.S.2d 237; Serby v. Long Is. Jewish Med. Ctr., 34 A.D.3d 441, 824 N.Y.S.2d 119; Matter of Hamilton v. Nassau Suffolk Home Health Car......
  • Griffith v. Wray
    • United States
    • New York Supreme Court Appellate Division
    • August 14, 2013
    ...the sanction of dismissal ( see CPLR 3216[e]; Dominguez v. Jamaica Med. Ctr., 72 A.D.3d 876, 898 N.Y.S.2d 869;Picot v. City of New York, 50 A.D.3d 757, 758, 855 N.Y.S.2d 237;McKinney v. Corby, 295 A.D.2d at 581, 744 N.Y.S.2d 882;Flomenhaft v. Baron, 281 A.D.2d 389, 721 N.Y.S.2d 381). In ren......
  • 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