Serby v. Long Island Jewish Medical Center
| Decision Date | 08 November 2006 |
| Docket Number | 2005-06228. |
| Citation | 2006 NY Slip Op 08106,824 N.Y.S.2d 119,34 A.D.3d 441 |
| Parties | VICTOR M. SERBY et al., Respondents, v. LONG ISLAND JEWISH MEDICAL CENTER et al., Appellants, et al., Defendants. |
| Court | New York Supreme Court — Appellate Division |
Ordered that the order is reversed, on the law and in the exercise of discretion, with one bill of costs, and the motions to dismiss the complaint insofar as asserted against the defendants Long Island Jewish Medical Center and Harold Thies are granted.
It is incumbent upon a party served with a 90-day notice pursuant to CPLR 3216 to comply with it by filing a note of issue or by moving, before the default date, either to vacate the notice or extend the 90-day period (see Chaudhry v Ziomek, 21 AD3d 922, 924 [2005]; Allen v Makhnevich, 15 AD3d 425, 426 [2005]; Brady v Benenson Capital Co., 2 AD3d 382 [2003]). The plaintiffs did neither. Accordingly, to avoid dismissal, the plaintiffs were required to show both a "justifiable excuse for the delay and a good and meritorious cause of action" (CPLR 3216 [e]; see Sharpe v Osorio, 21 AD3d 467 [2005]; Estate of Hamilton v Nassau Suffolk Home Health Care, 1 AD3d 474 [2003]; Aguilar v Knutson, 296 AD2d 562 [2002]). The plaintiffs 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]; Fiore v Galang, 64 NY2d 999, 1000-1001 [1985]; Salch v Paratore, 60 NY2d 851, 852 [1983]; Nicolaides v Nyack Hosp., 279 AD2d 617, 618 [2001]; Burke v Klein, 269 AD2d 348, 348-349 [2000]; Abelard v Interfaith Med. Ctr., 202 AD2d 615, 616 [1994]). Furthermore, the plaintiffs failed to offer a reasonable excuse to justify their failure to comply with the 90-day notices or their delay in the prosecution of this action. Accordingly, the Supreme Court improvidently exercised its discretion in denying the appellants' respective motions to dismiss the complaint insofar as asserted against them.
Separate motions by the appellant Long Island Jewish Medical Center and the...
To continue reading
Request your trial
-
Byers v. Winthrop Univ. Hosp.
...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 requirements are not alternative requirements and both requirements must be met in order to vacat......
-
Cope v. Barakaat
...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 for his failure to comply with the 90–day notice ( see Baczko......
-
Lee v. Rad
...of action (see CPLR 3216[e] ; 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 ; Estate of Hamilton v. Nassau Suffolk Home Health Care, 1 A.D.3d 474, 767 N.Y.S.2d 230 ). Here, although the plaintiff did not file......
-
Dominguez v. Jamaica Med. Ctr.
...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 Care, 1 A.D.3d 474, 767 N.Y.S.2d 230). The plaintiff failed to ......