Siegel v. Commack Sch. Dist.

• Decision Date: 05 June 2013
• Citation: 2013 N.Y. Slip Op. 03983,966 N.Y.S.2d 215,107 A.D.3d 687
• Parties: Kimberly SIEGEL, etc., respondent, v. COMMACK SCHOOL DISTRICT, appellant.
• Court: New York Supreme Court — Appellate Division

107 A.D.3d 687

966 N.Y.S.2d 215

2013 N.Y. Slip Op. 03983

Kimberly SIEGEL, etc., respondent,

v.COMMACK SCHOOL DISTRICT, appellant.

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

June 5, 2013.

Lamb & Barnosky, LLP, Melville, N.Y. (Scott M. Karson and Michael F. Mullen of counsel), for appellant.

Baram & Kaiser, Garden City, N.Y. (Steven S. Kaiser of counsel), for respondent.

REINALDO E. RIVERA, J.P., THOMAS A. DICKERSON, JOHN M. LEVENTHAL, and PLUMMER E. LOTT, JJ.

In an action to recover damages for personal injuries, the defendant appeals from an order of the Supreme Court, Suffolk County (Molia, J.), dated November 19, 2012, which denied its motion pursuant to CPLR 3216 to dismiss the complaint for failure to prosecute.

ORDERED that the order is reversed, on the law, with costs, and the defendant's motion pursuant to CPLR 3216 to dismiss the complaint for failure to prosecute is granted.

Having received a 90–day demand pursuant to CPLR 3216, the plaintiff was required to serve and file a note of issue in compliance with the demand or to move, before the default date, to vacate the demand or to extend the 90–day period pursuant to CPLR 2004 ( see Cope v. Barakaat, 89 A.D.3d 670, 671, 931 N.Y.S.2d 910;Gagnon v. Campbell, 86 A.D.3d 623, 624, 927 N.Y.S.2d 602;Sanchez v. Serje, 78 A.D.3d 1155, 1156, 913 N.Y.S.2d 919). The plaintiff did none of these things. Thus, to avoid dismissal of the complaint, the plaintiff was required to show a justifiable excuse for the delay and a potentially meritorious cause of action ( seeCPLR 3216[e]; Umeze v. Fidelis Care N.Y., 17 N.Y.3d 751, 929 N.Y.S.2d 67, 952 N.E.2d 1060;Baczkowski v. Collins Constr. Co., 89 N.Y.2d 499, 504, 655 N.Y.S.2d 848, 678 N.E.2d 460;Garcia v. North Shore Long Is. Jewish Forest Hills Hosp., 98 A.D.3d 644, 645, 949 N.Y.S.2d 781).

The plaintiff failed to tender a justifiable excuse for her failure to respond to the 90–day demand ( see Umeze v. Fidelis Care N.Y., 17 N.Y.3d at 751, 929 N.Y.S.2d 67, 952 N.E.2d 1060;Baczkowski v. Collins Constr. Co., 89 N.Y.2d at 504, 655 N.Y.S.2d 848, 678 N.E.2d 460;Garcia v. North Shore Long Is. Jewish Forest Hills Hosp., 98 A.D.3d at 645, 949 N.Y.S.2d 781;Cope v. Barakaat, 89 A.D.3d at 671, 931 N.Y.S.2d 910;Ovchinnikov v. Joyce Owners Corp., 43 A.D.3d 1124, 1127, 843 N.Y.S.2d 345). Furthermore, the plaintiff failed to submit a sufficient affidavit of merit ( see Baczkowski v. Collins Constr. Co., 89 N.Y.2d at 503–504, 655 N.Y.S.2d 848, 678 N.E.2d 460;Cope v. Barakaat, 89 A.D.3d at 671, 931 N.Y.S.2d 910;Picot v. City of New York, 50 A.D.3d 757, 758, 855 N.Y.S.2d 237). The complaint and bill of particulars verified by the plaintiff's father were insufficient to demonstrate a potentially meritorious cause of action, since he did not have personal knowledge of the facts underlying the claim ( see Pollnow v. Poughkeepsie Newspapers, 67 N.Y.2d 778, 780, 501 N.Y.S.2d 17, 492 N.E.2d 125;Harris v. Five Point Mission–Camp Olmstedt, 73 A.D.3d 1127, 1129, 901 N.Y.S.2d 678;Adefioye v. Volunteers of Am., 222 A.D.2d 246, 248, 634 N.Y.S.2d 696;Rosenthal v....