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

305 A.D.2d 664

759 N.Y.S.2d 690

JOSEPHINE E. SUSTAD et al., Appellants,

v.NICHOLAS KARAGIANNIS et al., Respondents.

Decided May 27, 2003.

Santucci, J.P., Smith, Luciano and Mastro, JJ., concur.

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(seeAguilar 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 (seeAguilar 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 (seeAguilar 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.