Sustad v. Karagiannis
| Decision Date | 27 May 2003 |
| Citation | 305 A.D.2d 664,759 N.Y.S.2d 690 |
| Parties | JOSEPHINE E. SUSTAD et al., Appellants,<BR>v.<BR>NICHOLAS KARAGIANNIS et al., Respondents. |
| Court | New York Supreme Court — Appellate Division |
Ordered that the order is affirmed insofar as appealed from, with costs.
The certification order of November 13, 2000, constituted a valid 90-day notice pursuant to CPLR 3216 (see Aguilar v Knutson, 296 AD2d 562 [2002]; Vento v Bargain Bilge W., 292 AD2d 596 [2002]; Longacre Corp. v Better Hosp. Equip. Corp., 228 AD2d 653 [1996]). Having received a 90-day notice, the plaintiffs were required either to file a note of issue within 90 days or to move pursuant to CPLR 2004 before the default date for an extension of time within which to comply (see Aguilar v Knutson, supra; Werbin v Locicero, 287 AD2d 617 [2001]). The plaintiffs did neither. Accordingly, the plaintiffs could vacate the dismissal only by establishing a reasonable excuse for noncompliance and a meritorious cause of action (see Aguilar v Knutson, supra; Vento v Bargain Bilge W., supra; Werbin v Locicero, supra). We agree with the Supreme Court that the plaintiffs failed to establish a reasonable excuse. Thus, the Supreme Court properly denied the plaintiffs' cross motion.
To continue reading
Request your trial
-
Sicoli v. Sasson
...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......
-
GORDON v. RATNER
...N.Y.S.2d 768 (2d Dept. 2010); Bokhari v. Home Depot U.S.A., 4 A.D.3d 381, 771 N.Y.S.2d 395 (2d Dept. 2004); Sustad v. Karagiannis, 305 A.D.2d 664, 759 N.Y.S.2d 690 (2d Dept. 2003). The Court finds that plaintiffs did demonstrate a reasonable excuse for their failure to timely file the Note ......
- Tamburello v. Bensonhurst Car & Limo Service, Inc.