THE 90-DAY DEMAND REQUIRED BY CPLR 3216 WAS NOT PROVIDED BY THE COURT’S ORDER; THE ACTION SHOULD HAVE BEEN RESTORED TO THE ACTIVE CALENDAR WITHOUT A SHOWING OF MERIT; THE ISSUE, FIRST RAISED ON APPEAL, WAS PROPERLY CONSIDERED BY THE APPELLATE COURT (SECOND DEPT).

The Second Department, reversing Supreme Court, determined the action should have been restored to the active calendar because the 90-day demand required by CPLR 3216 was never provided. The issue was properly considered for the first time on appeal because, had the issue been raised below, it could not have been ignored:

Here, the order dated June 26, 2018 … directed the filing of a note of issue by June 29, 2018, but failed to provide the plaintiff with 90 days within which to comply with that directive. Thus, the order dated June 26, 2018, did not constitute a valid 90-day demand pursuant to CPLR 3216 … . Moreover, the order dated June 26, 2018, did not contain the requisite language advising that failure to file a note of issue would be the basis for a motion to dismiss … . …

Although the plaintiff’s contentions i… are raised for the first time on appeal, they may be reached, as they involve issues of law appearing on the face of the record that could not have been avoided if they had been raised at the proper juncture … . OneWest Bank, FSB v Segal, 2023 NY Slip Op 06146, Second Dept 11-29-23

Practice Point: The failure to provide the 90-demand required by CPLR 3216 is reversible error which can be raised for the first time on appeal.