You are here: / / Default for Failure to File Note of Issue Within 90 Days of Demand Properly...

Default for Failure to File Note of Issue Within 90 Days of Demand Properly Excused

In affirming Supreme Court’s denial of defendants’ motion to dismiss for failure to file and note of issue after a 90-day demand, the Second Department noted the court’s discretion in this area:

Where, as here, a plaintiff has been served with a 90-day demand pursuant to CPLR 3216(b)(3), that plaintiff must comply with the demand by filing a note of issue or by moving, before the default date, either to vacate the demand or to extend the 90-day period … . Here, the plaintiff failed to do either within the 90-day period. Therefore, in order to excuse his default, the plaintiff was required to demonstrate a justifiable excuse for his failure to timely file the note of issue or move to either vacate the demand or extend the 90-day period, as well as a potentially meritorious cause of action … . The determination of what constitutes a reasonable excuse lies within the discretion of the motion court … .

Nevertheless, CPLR 3216 is “extremely forgiving” …, 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” … . Thus, “the statute prohibits the Supreme Court from dismissing a complaint based on failure to prosecute whenever the plaintiff has shown a justifiable excuse for the delay, and potentially a meritorious cause of action” …, but depending on the circumstances, a plaintiff is not always required to establish both a justifiable excuse and a potentially meritorious cause of action to avoid such a dismissal … .

In this case, the plaintiff demonstrated that he did not intend to abandon the action and that there were ongoing discovery proceedings conducted during the time period involved. Belson v Dix Hills AC Inc, 2014 NY Slip Op 05144, 2nd Dept 7-9-14

 

You might also like
THE PROOF THE DEFENDANT WAS PROPERLY SERVED WAS NOT REBUTTED BY THE DEFENDANT’S UNSUBSTANTIATED ALLEGATIONS, SUPREME COURT REVERSED (SECOND DEPT).
SCHOOL BUS DRIVER ALLEGEDLY GESTURED TO PLAINTIFF TO MAKE A TURN AND PLAINTIFF’S VEHICLE WAS THEN STRUCK BY ANOTHER VEHICLE; THE SCHOOL DISTRICT’S MOTION FOR SUMMARY JUDGMENT WAS PROPERLY DENIED (SECOND DEPT).
CERTAIN DISCOVERY DEMANDS IN THIS NEGLIGENCE AND PUBLIC HEALTH LAW ACTION AGAINST A RESIDENTIAL CARE FACILITY ON BEHALF OF A FORMER RESIDENT SHOULD NOT HAVE BEEN DENIED (SECOND DEPT).
SAFETY CONSULTANT DID NOT EXERCISE SUFFICIENT CONTROL OVER WORKSITE TO BE LIABLE UNDER LABOR LAW 240(1), 241(6) OR 200–CRITERIA EXPLAINED.
Requirements for Common Law Indemnification and Contribution Causes of Action Explained
CRITIERIA FOR SPOLIATION OF EVIDENCE NOT MET.
Criteria for Whether Public Employer/Employee Dispute Is Arbitrable Explained
MOTION, MADE BY PLAINTIFF’S NEW COUNSEL, TO VACATE A STIPULATION ENTERED INTO BY PRIOR COUNSEL SHOULD NOT HAVE BEEN GRANTED, PRIOR COUNSEL HAD THE APPARENT AUTHORITY TO ENTER THE STIPULATION AND PLAINTIFF CAN NOT LATER ARGUE PRIOR COUNSEL LACKED AUTHORITY (SECOND DEPT).

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

Defense of Lack of Personal Jurisdiction Is Not Waived by Making a Motion to... Affidavits, Deposition Testimony, and Letters Are Not Considered “Documentary...