Sicoli v. Sasson

• Decision Date: 21 September 2010
• Citation: 908 N.Y.S.2d 100,76 A.D.3d 1002
• Parties: Frank SICOLI, et al., appellants, v. Homayoun Nazarian SASSON, etc., et al., respondents.
• Court: New York Supreme Court — Appellate Division

908 N.Y.S.2d 100

76 A.D.3d 1002

Frank SICOLI, et al., appellants,

v.Homayoun Nazarian SASSON, etc., et al., respondents.

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

Sept. 21, 2010.

James J. Keefe, P.C., Mineola, N.Y., for appellants.

Bartlett, McDonough, Bastone & Monaghan, LLP, White Plains, N.Y. (Edward J. Guardaro, Jr., and Terence S. Reynolds of counsel), for respondentsHomayoun Nazarian Sasson and H. Sasson, M.D., P.C.

Shaub, Ahmuty, Citrin & Spratt, LLP, Lake Success, N.Y. (Christopher Simone and Lena Holubnyczyj of counsel), for respondent North Shore University Hospital.

WILLIAM F. MASTRO, J.P., ANITA R. FLORIO, THOMAS A. DICKERSON, ARIEL E. BELEN, and PLUMMER E. LOTT, JJ.

In an action, inter alia, to recover damages for medical malpractice and lack of informed consent, the plaintiffs appeal from an order of the Supreme Court, Nassau County(Brandveen, J.), dated June 29, 2009, which granted the motion of the defendantsHomayoun Nazarian Sasson and H. Sasson, M.D., P.C., and the separate motion of the defendant North Shore University Hospital, in effect, pursuant toCPLR 3216 to dismiss the action pursuant to a recertification order of the same court(McCabe, J.), dated July 16, 2008, directing the plaintiffs to file a note of issue within 90 days, and denied their cross motion to extend the time to serve and file a note of issue.

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

The recertification order of the Supreme Court dated July 16, 2008, directing the plaintiffs to file a note of issue within 90 days and warning that the action would be deemed dismissed without further order of the court if the plaintiffs failed to comply with that directive, had the same effect as a valid 90-day notice pursuant to CPLR 3216( seeRodriguez v. Five Towns Nissan,69 A.D.3d 833, 892 N.Y.S.2d 768;Petersen v. Lysaght, Lysaght & Kramer, P.C.,47 A.D.3d 783, 851 N.Y.S.2d 209;Sustad v. Karagiannis,305 A.D.2d 664, 759 N.Y.S.2d 690).Having received a 90-day notice, the plaintiffs were required either to file a timely note of issue or to move, before the default date, for an extension of time pursuant to CPLR 2004( seeBokhari v. Home Depot U.S.A.,4 A.D.3d 381, 382, 771 N.Y.S.2d 395;Apicella v. Estate of Apicella,305 A.D.2d 621, 759 N.Y.S.2d 546;Aguilar v. Knutson,296 A.D.2d 562, 747 N.Y.S.2d 517).The plaintiffs did neither.

To avoid the dismissal of the action, the plaintiffs were required to demonstrate a reasonable excuse for their failure to comply with the recertification order and the existence of a potentially meritorious cause of action ( seeRodriguez v. Five Towns Nissan,69 A.D.3d 833, 892 N.Y.S.2d 768;Bokhari v. Home Depot U.S.A.,4 A.D.3d 381, 382, 771 N.Y.S.2d 395;Sustad v. Karagiannis,305 A.D.2d 664, 759 N.Y.S.2d 690).Even assuming that the plaintiffs provided a reasonable excuse for their default ( seeCPLR 2005;Giannoccoli v. One Cent. Park W. Assoc.,15 A.D.3d 348, 349, 790 N.Y.S.2d 159;Betty v. City of New York,12 A.D.3d 472, 473-474, 784 N.Y.S.2d 621;Association for Children with Learning Disabilities, Nassau Ch. v. Zafar,115...