You are here: / / Supreme Court Should Not Have Denied Plaintiffs’ Motion to Extend...

Supreme Court Should Not Have Denied Plaintiffs’ Motion to Extend the 90-Day Period for Filing a Note of Issue

In finding Supreme Court abused its discretion in denying plaintiffs’ motion to extend the 90-day period for filing a note of issue, the Second Department explained the analytical criteria:

Once the plaintiffs were in receipt of the 90-day notice, they were required to serve and file a timely note of issue, or move before the default date to either vacate the 90-day notice or extend the 90-day period pursuant to CPLR 2004 … . Here, there is no dispute that the plaintiffs timely moved, inter alia, to extend the 90-day period. However, notwithstanding the plaintiff’s timely motion, the Supreme Court directed the dismissal of the complaint pursuant to CPLR 3216. This was an improvident exercise of discretion.

The determination as to whether to vacate a 90-day notice and grant an extension of time to file a note of issue lies within the court’s discretion, and this determination may be guided by the length of the delay in prosecuting the action, the reason for the delay, the prejudice to the defendants, and whether the moving party was in default before seeking the extension … . The Court of Appeals has observed that 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” … . Amos v Southampton Hosp., 2015 NY Slip Op 06700, 2nd Dept 9-2-15

 

You might also like
Company Which Contracted with County to Maintain Traffic Signals Did Not Owe a Duty to Plaintiff—Plaintiff Alleged a Malfunctioning Traffic Signal Caused an Accident in Which She Was Injured
Denial of Guilt to Department of Probation (DOP) Was Not a Violation of a Condition that Defendant Cooperate With the DOP
PLAINTIFF HOMEOWNERS’ ACTION AGAINST THE INSURER FOR BREACH OF CONTRACT, FRAUD AND NEGLIGENCE SHOULD HAVE BEEN DISMISSED; PLAINTIFF ACKNOWLEDGED THE HOME WAS VACANT WHEN THE POLICY WAS PURCHASED AND AT THE TIME OF THE FIRE AND THE POLICY EXCLUDED COVERAGE FOR VACANT PROPERTY (SECOND DEPT).
A NOTE EXECUTED BY ONE TENANT BY ENTIRETY AND SECURED BY REAL PROPERTY OWNED BY BOTH TENANTS BY THE ENTIRETY, DONE WITHOUT THE OTHER TENANT BY THE ENTIRETY’S CONSENT, DOES NOT ENCUMBER THE OTHER TENANT BY THE ENTIRETY’S INTEREST IN THE REAL PROPERTY (SECOND DEPT).
AN INSURER WHO HAS NO DUTY TO DEFEND THE INSUREDS BECAUSE OF LATE NOTIFICATION, IN THE ABSENCE OF A PROVISION IN THE POLICY, MAY NOT RECOVER THE COSTS OF DEFENDING THE ACTION FROM THE INSUREDS AND THE SUCCESSFUL PLAINTIFF IN THE UNDERLYING ACTION (SECOND DEPT).
DEFENSE COUNSEL WAS NOT INEFFECTIVE FOR FAILING TO RAISE THE INTOXICATION DEFENSE IN THIS MURDER CASE; THE MANSLAUGHTER CHARGE MUST BE DISMISSED AS AN INCLUSORY CONCURRENT COUNT OF MURDER (SECOND DEPT).
DEFENDANT INSURER’S MOTION FOR SUMMARY JUDGMENT DISMISSING THE “BAD FAITH” COMPLAINT–ALLEGING A BAD FAITH FAILURE TO SETTLE PLAINTIFF’S PERSONAL INJURY ACTION STEMMING FROM A TRAFFIC ACCIDENT–SHOULD HAVE BEEN GRANTED (SECOND DEPT).
PLAINTIFF BANK DID NOT DEMONSTRATE IT HAD STANDING TO BRING THE FORECLOSURE ACTION (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

Passenger in Recreational Go-Kart Assumed the Risk of Injury Caused by Being... Plaintiffs Raised a Question of Fact Whether “SLAPP” Suit Has a...