You are here: / / Criteria for Avoiding Dismissal After Failure to Comply with 90-Day Notice...

Criteria for Avoiding Dismissal After Failure to Comply with 90-Day Notice to Serve and File Note of Issue Explained

The Second Department explained the criteria for avoiding dismissal for failure to comply with a 90-day notice to serve and file a note of issue:

Here, the defendant … did not serve a 90-day demand, but relied instead on an order dated June 13, 2008, which instructed the plaintiffs that the failure to serve and file a note of issue within 90 days would result in dismissal of the action pursuant to CPLR 3216. This order had the same effect as a valid 90-day notice pursuant to CPLR 3216 … .To avoid the sanction of dismissal, the plaintiffs were initially required to comply with the order dated June 13, 2008, either by serving and filing a timely note of issue or by moving, before the default date, to vacate the order or to extend the 90-day period pursuant to CPLR 2004 … . Having failed to pursue either of the foregoing options, the plaintiffs were obligated to demonstrate a reasonable excuse for the delay and a potentially meritorious cause of action to avoid the sanction of dismissal (see CPLR 3216[e]…).  Griffith v Wray, 2013 NY Slip Op 05615, 2nd Dept 8-14-13

 

You might also like
LETTER AGREEMENT REGARDING A LEASE WAS NOT AN ENFORCEABLE CONTRACT; RATHER IT WAS AN AGREEMENT TO AGREE (SECOND DEPT).
FAILURE TO REJECT A LATE ANSWER WITHIN 15 DAYS WAIVES LATE SERVICE AND THE DEFAULT (SECOND DEPT).
BEFORE SUING A TORTFEASOR’S INSURER, PLAINTIFF MUST OBTAIN A JUDGMENT AGAINST THE TORTFEASOR (SECOND DEPT).
STATUTE ALLOWING PROPERTY OWNERS TO CHOOSE SCHOOL DISTRICTS DOES NOT APPLY TO CONDOMINIUMS WHICH LIE ON THE BORDER BETWEEN TWO DISTRICTS.
CITY’S DECISION TO LAYOFF FIREFIGHTERS IS NOT ARBITRABLE UNDER A COLLECTIVE BARGAINING AGREEMENT, PUBLIC POLICY VESTS NONDELEGABLE DISCRETION TO HIRE AND FIRE IN THE PUBLIC CORPORATION (SECOND DEPT).
ATTORNEY LETTERS DID NOT CONSTITUTE DOCUMENTARY EVIDENCE WHICH WOULD SUPPORT A MOTION TO DISMISS (SECOND DEPT).
THE MAJORITY FOUND PLAINTIFF’S EXPERT’S AFFIDAVIT, ALLEGING PLAINTIFF’S DECEDENT WAS GIVEN TOO MUCH MORPHINE, WAS SPECULATIVE AND CONCLUSORY; TWO DISSENTERS DISAGREED; THE DEFENDANTS’ MOTION FOR SUMMARY JUDGMENT IN THIS MEDICAL MALPRACTICE ACTION WAS PROPERLY GRANTED (SECOND DEPT).
Distinction Between New York College Funds, Which Are Protected Against Creditors, and College Funds Established in Other States, Which Are Not Protected, Does Not Violate the Equal Protection Clause

Categories

Sign Up for the Mailing List to Be Notified When the Site Is Updated.

  • This field is for validation purposes and should be left unchanged.

Copyright © 2026 New York Appellate Digest, Inc.
Site by CurlyHost | Privacy Policy

Criteria for Disclosure from Nonparty Witness “Law of the Case” Doctrine Did Not Apply—Dismissal of Affirmative...