You are here: / / In Opposing a Motion to Dismiss for Failure to Timely File a Note of Issue,...

In Opposing a Motion to Dismiss for Failure to Timely File a Note of Issue, No Need to Show Potentially Meritorious Cause of Action Where Defendant Contributed to the Delay

The Second Department determined that defendants’ motion to dismiss for failure to prosecute should not have been granted. The court noted that one of the defendants contributed to the delay in filing the note of issue by not showing up for a deposition. Because of the defendant’s contribution to the delay, the plaintiff did not have to demonstrate a potentially meritorious cause of action:

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” … . When served with a 90-day demand pursuant to CPLR 3216, it is incumbent upon a plaintiff to comply with the demand by filing a note of issue or by moving, before the default date, either to vacate the demand or extend the 90-day period … . In general, if a plaintiff fails to comply with the demand, to avoid the sanction of dismissal, the plaintiff is required to demonstrate a justifiable excuse for the delay and the existence of a potentially meritorious cause of action (see CPLR 3216[e]…).

Here, although the plaintiff did not file a note of issue within the 90-day demand period, her conduct negated any inference that she intended to abandon the action … . In opposition to the defendants’ separate motions, the plaintiff promptly cross-moved to strike the answer of … defendant …Sarab for his willful failure to appear for a court-ordered deposition. The plaintiff established that, due to an unresolved discovery dispute, she was unable to timely file a note of issue … . Furthermore, since Sarab contributed to the plaintiff’s inability to file a timely note of issue in the proper form, the plaintiff was not required to demonstrate a potentially meritorious cause of action … . Lee v Rad, 2015 NY Slip Op 07248, 2nd Dept 10-7-15

 

You might also like
Inadequate Pain and Suffering Damages Verdict Properly Set Aside
A PROPER FOUNDATION FOR THE BUSINESS RECORDS NECESSARY TO DEMONSTRATE STANDING TO BRING THE FORECLOSURE ACTION WAS NOT LAID; THE BANK’S SUMMARY JUDGMENT MOTION SHOULD NOT HAVE BEEN GRANTED (SECOND DEPT).
PLAINTIFF WAS INVOLVED IN A COLLISION WHICH PUSHED HIS CAR INTO DEFENDANT’S CAR WHICH WAS PARKED ALONG THE CURB IN VIOLATION OF PARKING REGULATIONS; THE LOCATION OF DEFENDANT’S CAR WAS NOT A PROXIMATE CAUSE OF THE ACCIDENT; DEFENDANT’S SUMMARY JUDGMENT MOTION SHOULD HAVE BEEN GRANTED (SECOND DEPT). ​
Speculation About Cause of Fall Required Summary Judgment In Favor of Defendant
PROPERTY DEFENDANTS’ MOTION TO JOIN THE SLIP AND FALL ACTION WITH A MEDICAL MALPRACTICE ACTION STEMMING FROM THE SLIP AND FALL INJURY PROPERLY DENIED (SECOND DEPT).
THE JUDGE SHOULD NOT HAVE DISMISSED DEFENDANTS’ AFFIRMATIVE DEFENSES BECAUSE PLAINTIFF DID NOT REQUEST THAT RELIEF (SECOND DEPT).
IN THIS GROUNDWATER POLLUTION CASE, THE POLLUTION EXCLUSION IN THE INSURERS’ POLICIES APPLIED AND THE INSURERS ARE NOT OBLIGATED TO DEFEND AND INDEMNIFY THE INSURED OIL COMPANY (SECOND DEPT).
Plaintiff Was Properly Allowed to File a Late Notice of Claim—Criteria Explained

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 © 2024 New York Appellate Digest, Inc.
Site by CurlyHost | Privacy Policy

Elements of Causes of Action for (1) Misappropriation of (a) Trade Secrets,... Exclusion of Defendant’s Brother from the Courtroom Based Upon the Fear...