Spierto v. Pennisi
| Decision Date | 08 January 1996 |
| Citation | 636 N.Y.S.2d 118,223 A.D.2d 537 |
| Parties | Michele SPIERTO, Respondent, v. Anthony PENNISI, et al., Appellants. |
| Court | New York Supreme Court — Appellate Division |
Rossano, Mose, Hirschhorn & Corleto, P.C., Garden City (Angela G. Iannacci, of counsel), for appellant Anthony Pennisi.
Montfort, Healy, McGuire & Salley, Garden City (Philip J. Catapano, Joan E. Resnik, and E. Richard Rimmels, Jr., of counsel), for appellant Mercy Hospital.
Before BALLETTA, J.P., and ROSENBLATT, PIZZUTO, JOY and ALTMAN, JJ.
MEMORANDUM BY THE COURT.
In an action to recover damages for medical malpractice, (1) the defendant Mercy Hospital appeals from an order of the Supreme Court, Nassau County (Schmidt, J.), dated February 17, 1995, which denied its motion to dismiss the complaint pursuant to CPLR 3216 for failure to prosecute, and (2) the defendant Anthony Pennisi appeals from an order of the same court also dated February 17, 1995, which denied his motion for the same relief.
ORDERED that the orders are reversed, on the law, with one bill of costs, the motions of the defendants Mercy Hospital and Anthony Pennisi are granted, and the complaint is dismissed pursuant to CPLR 3216 for failure to prosecute.
Having been served with a 90-day notice pursuant to CPLR 3216, it was incumbent upon the plaintiff to comply with the notice by filing a note of issue or by moving, before the default date, to either vacate the notice or to extend the 90-day period (see, Turman v. Amity OBG Assocs., 170 A.D.2d 668, 567 N.Y.S.2d 87; Papadopoulas v. R.B. Supply Corp., 152 A.D.2d 552, 543 N.Y.S.2d 483). The plaintiff failed to do so. Accordingly, in order to avoid the sanction of dismissal, she was required to demonstrate a justifiable excuse for the delay in properly responding to the 90-day notice and that she had a meritorious cause of action (Papadopoulas v. R.B. Supply Corp., supra ). The plaintiff failed to meet this standard.
To continue reading
Request your trial
-
Forman v. Fleet Bank
...that he had a meritorious cause of action (see, Jimenez v. Gamboa, supra; Papadopoulas v. R.B. Supply Corp., supra; Spierto v. Pennisi, 223 A.D.2d 537, 636 N.Y.S.2d 118). Upon our review of the record, we find that the plaintiff met this burden. Thus, the Supreme Court did not err in denyin......
-
Allone v. University Hosp. of New York University Medical Center
...Rubin v. Baglio, 234 A.D.2d 534, 651 N.Y.S.2d 614; Lopez v. Pathmark Supermarket, 229 A.D.2d 566, 645 N.Y.S.2d 864; Spierto v. Pennisi, 223 A.D.2d 537, 538, 636 N.Y.S.2d 118), that party must demonstrate both a justifiable excuse for the delay in properly responding to the 90-day notice and......
-
Safina v. Queens-Long Island Medical Group, P.C.
...this burden, the appellants' motion should have been granted (see, Longacre Corp. v. Better Hosp. Equip. Corp., supra; Spierto v. Pennisi, 223 A.D.2d 537, 636 N.Y.S.2d 118; Papadopoulas v. R.B. Supply Corp., 152 A.D.2d 552, 543 N.Y.S.2d 483; Kwiatkowska v. Aramburu, 133 A.D.2d 810, 520 N.Y.......
-
Middleton v. John Luther and Son
...note of issue or to move before the default date either to extend the 90-day period or to vacate the notices (see, Spierto v. Pennisi, 223 A.D.2d 537, 538, 636 N.Y.S.2d 118), but plaintiff failed to do so. In order to avoid dismissal, plaintiff was required to demonstrate both a justifiable......