Tolmasova v. Umarova
Decision Date | 11 October 2005 |
Docket Number | 2005-00917. |
Citation | 2005 NY Slip Op 07523,22 A.D.3d 570,802 N.Y.S.2d 241 |
Parties | LARISA TOLMASOVA, Respondent, v. LUDMILA UMAROVA et al., Defendants, and ROMAN V. POPIK, Appellant. |
Court | New York Supreme Court — Appellate Division |
Ordered that the order is affirmed insofar as appealed from, with costs.
CPLR 3216 is "extremely forgiving" (Baczkowski v Collins Constr. Co., 89 NY2d 499, 503 [1997]) in that it "never requires, but merely authorizes, the Supreme Court to dismiss a plaintiff's action based on the plaintiff's unreasonable neglect to proceed" (Davis v Goodsell, 6 AD3d 382, 383 [2004]; see CPLR 3216 [a], [e]; Di Simone v Good Samaritan Hosp., 100 NY2d 632, 633 [2003]; Baczkowski v Collins Constr. Co., supra at 504-505). "While the statute prohibits the Supreme Court from dismissing an action based on neglect to proceed whenever the plaintiff has shown a justifiable excuse for his or her delay, and a meritorious cause of action ... such a dual showing is not strictly necessary in order for the plaintiff to escape such a dismissal" (Davis v Goodsell, supra at 383-384). For example, a plaintiff's failure to comply with a valid 90-day notice under CPLR 3216 (b) (3) "should, in the proper exercise of discretion, be excused under a variety of circumstances, including where a defendant ... has obstructed the plaintiff's own efforts to obtain legitimate pretrial disclosure from the defendant" (Davis v Goodsell, supra at 384).
In this case, among other things, the appellant did not respond to the plaintiff's discovery demands, but instead moved for summary judgment, which was denied, without prejudice, by order dated May 21, 2004. Thereafter, he sent a letter to the plaintiff's counsel, dated June 21, 2004, in which he stated, in part, that "[i]n order to maintain the integrity of the discovery process," there had to be a preliminary conference, and suggested that the plaintiff ask for one. The appellant served a 90-day notice on October 4, 2004. A preliminary conference was scheduled for January 7, 2005. The plaintiff'...
To continue reading
Request your trial-
Selletti v. Liotti
...necessary to avoid dismissal of the action (citations omitted)." Zito v. Jastremski, 35 A.D.3d 458 (2nd Dept. 2006); Tolmasova v. Umarova, 22 A.D.3d 570 (2nd Dept. 2005). Therefore, when exercising its discretion in this regard, a court should consider all relevant factors, including the ex......
-
Ramon v. Zangari
...against each of them for failure to prosecute ( see Gibson v. Fakheri, 77 A.D.3d at 620, 908 N.Y.S.2d 356;Tolmasova v. Umarova, 22 A.D.3d 570, 570–571, 802 N.Y.S.2d 241;Scheurer v. Xerox Corp., 258 A.D.2d 332, 683 N.Y.S.2d 846;see generally Ferrera v. Esposit, 66 A.D.3d 637, 638, 886 N.Y.S.......
-
Darty v. Hempstead Vill. Hous. Assocs.
...& Serlin, 85 A.D.3d 949, 925 N.Y.S.2d 860;Lauri v. Freeport Union Free School Dist., 78 A.D.3d 1130, 912 N.Y.S.2d 278;Tolmasova v. Umarova, 22 A.D.3d 570, 802 N.Y.S.2d 241). Here, the order dated November 17, 2010, served as the requisite 90–day notice pursuant to CPLR 3216 ( see M.V.B. Col......
- Tobin-Aliperti v. Porto, 2004-02681.