Primiano v. Ginsberg, 2007-10059

CourtNew York Supreme Court — Appellate Division
Citation865 N.Y.S.2d 639,55 A.D.3d 709,2008 NY Slip Op 07895
Decision Date14 October 2008
PartiesMICHAEL PRIMIANO et al., Appellants, v. LAURENCE T. GINSBERG et al., Defendants and Third-Party Plaintiffs-Respondents. SIMPSON ELECTRIC, THIRD-PARTY Defendant-Respondent.
Docket Number2007-10059
55 A.D.3d 709
865 N.Y.S.2d 639
2008 NY Slip Op 07895
MICHAEL PRIMIANO et al., Appellants,
v.
LAURENCE T. GINSBERG et al., Defendants and Third-Party Plaintiffs-Respondents.
SIMPSON ELECTRIC, THIRD-PARTY Defendant-Respondent.
2007-10059
Appellate Division of the Supreme Court of the State of New York, Second Department.
October 14, 2008.

In an action to recover damages for personal injuries, etc., the plaintiffs appeal from an order of the Supreme Court, Queens County (Dorsa, J.), entered July 2, 2007, which granted the defendants' motion pursuant to CPLR 3216 to dismiss the complaint for failure to prosecute and denied the plaintiffs' cross motion to vacate a stay of the trial on damages.


Ordered that the order is reversed, on the law and in the exercise of discretion, with costs, the defendants' motion is denied, the plaintiffs' cross motion is granted, and the stay of the trial on damages is vacated.

CPLR 3216 is "extremely forgiving" (Baczkowski v Collins Constr. Co., 89 NY2d 499, 503 [1997]) in that it "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 AD3d 382, 383-384 [2004]; see CPLR 3216 [a], [e]; Di Simone v Good Samaritan Hosp., 100 NY2d 632, 633 [2003]; Baczkowski v Collins Constr. Co., 89 NY2d 499, 504-505 [1997]). When served with a 90-day demand pursuant to CPLR 3216, it is incumbent upon a plaintiff to comply with the demand by filing a note of issue or by moving, before the default date, to either vacate the notice or extend the 90-day period (see Turman v Amity OBG Assoc., 170 AD2d 668 [1991]; Papadopoulas v R.B. Supply Corp., 152 AD2d 552 [1989]; Mason v Simmons,

139 AD2d 880 [1988]). If a plaintiff fails to comply with the demand, to avoid the sanction of dismissal, the plaintiff is required to demonstrate a justifiable excuse for the delay in properly responding to the 90-day demand and the existence of a meritorious cause of action (see Papadopoulas v R.B. Supply Corp., 152 AD2d 552 [1989]; Mason v Simmons, 139 AD2d 880 [1988]).

Here, although the plaintiffs did not file a note of issue within the 90-day demand period, the facts negated any inference that they intended to abandon the action (see Davis v Goodsell, 6 AD3d 382, 384 [2004]; Martinisi v Cornwall Hosp., 177 AD2d 549, 551 [1991]). There was some activity by the plaintiffs' counsel to ascertain the status of a Chapter 7...

To continue reading

Request your trial
5 practice notes
  • Umeze v. Fidelis Care N.Y.
    • United States
    • New York Supreme Court Appellate Division
    • September 21, 2010
    ...a note of issue or by moving, before the default date, to either vacate the notice or extend the 90-day period" ( Primiano v. Ginsberg, 55 A.D.3d 709, 709, 865 N.Y.S.2d 639 [2008]; see Serby v. Long Is. Jewish Med. Ctr., 34 A.D.3d 441, 824 N.Y.S.2d 119 [2006], lv. denied 8 N.Y.3d 805, 831 N......
  • Selletti v. Liotti, Docket Number:11169/00
    • United States
    • United States State Supreme Court (New York)
    • January 8, 2010
    ...is required to provide a justifiable excuse for his delay and to demonstrate a meritorious cause of action. Primiano v. Ginsberg, 55 A.D.3d 709 (2nd 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......
  • Umeze v. Fidelis Care N.Y., 2655
    • United States
    • New York Supreme Court Appellate Division
    • September 21, 2010
    ...to vacate the demand notice or extend the 90-day period which would have also avoided dismissal. See Primiano v. Ginsberg, 55 AD3d 709, 865 N.Y.S.2d 639 (2d Dept. 2008). Accordingly, the plaintiff had one more opportunity to stave off dismissal pursuant CPLR 3216(e) by showing both a "justi......
  • Austin v. Gould, 5868
    • United States
    • New York Supreme Court Appellate Division
    • March 1, 2018
    ...by filing a note of issue or by moving, before the default date, to either vacate or extend the 90–day period" ( Primiano v. Ginsberg, 55 A.D.3d 709, 709, 865 N.Y.S.2d 639 [2d Dept. 2008] ; Serby v. Long Is. Jewish Med. Ctr., 34 A.D.3d 441, 824 N.Y.S.2d 119 [2d Dept. 2006], lv denied 8 N.Y.......
  • Request a trial to view additional results
5 cases
  • Umeze v. Fidelis Care N.Y.
    • United States
    • New York Supreme Court Appellate Division
    • September 21, 2010
    ...a note of issue or by moving, before the default date, to either vacate the notice or extend the 90-day period" ( Primiano v. Ginsberg, 55 A.D.3d 709, 709, 865 N.Y.S.2d 639 [2008]; see Serby v. Long Is. Jewish Med. Ctr., 34 A.D.3d 441, 824 N.Y.S.2d 119 [2006], lv. denied 8 N.Y.3d 805, 831 N......
  • Umeze v. Fidelis Care N.Y., 2655
    • United States
    • New York Supreme Court Appellate Division
    • September 21, 2010
    ...to vacate the demand notice or extend the 90-day period which would have also avoided dismissal. See Primiano v. Ginsberg, 55 AD3d 709, 865 N.Y.S.2d 639 (2d Dept. 2008). Accordingly, the plaintiff had one more opportunity to stave off dismissal pursuant CPLR 3216(e) by showing both a "justi......
  • Selletti v. Liotti, Docket Number:11169/00
    • United States
    • United States State Supreme Court (New York)
    • January 8, 2010
    ...is required to provide a justifiable excuse for his delay and to demonstrate a meritorious cause of action. Primiano v. Ginsberg, 55 A.D.3d 709 (2nd 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......
  • Austin v. Gould, 5868
    • United States
    • New York Supreme Court Appellate Division
    • March 1, 2018
    ...by filing a note of issue or by moving, before the default date, to either vacate or extend the 90–day period" ( Primiano v. Ginsberg, 55 A.D.3d 709, 709, 865 N.Y.S.2d 639 [2d Dept. 2008] ; Serby v. Long Is. Jewish Med. Ctr., 34 A.D.3d 441, 824 N.Y.S.2d 119 [2d Dept. 2006], lv denied 8 N.Y.......
  • 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