You are here: / / CPLR 3216 IS A FORGIVING STATUTE WHICH ALLOWS BUT DOES NOT REQUIRE DISMISSAL...
,

CPLR 3216 IS A FORGIVING STATUTE WHICH ALLOWS BUT DOES NOT REQUIRE DISMISSAL OF THE COMPLAINT FOR FAILURE TO COMPLY WITH A 90-DAY NOTICE; HERE PLAINTIFFS PRESENTED AN ADEQUATE EXCUSE AND DEMONSTRATED THE ACTION HAS MERIT; THE COMPLAINT SHOULD NOT HAVE BEEN DISMISSED (SECOND DEPT).

The Second Department, reversing Supreme Court, determined the complaint should not have been dismissed on “neglect to proceed” grounds after plaintiffs’ failure to comply with the 90-day notice:

“CPLR 3216 is an extremely forgiving statute which never requires, but merely authorizes, the Supreme Court to dismiss a plaintiff’s action based on the plaintiff’s unreasonable neglect to proceed” … . In opposition to a motion to dismiss pursuant to CPLR 3216, a plaintiff may still avoid dismissal if he or she demonstrates “a justifiable excuse for the failure to timely abide by the 90-day demand, as well as the existence of a potentially meritorious cause of action” … . “Thus, even when all of the statutory preconditions are met, including plaintiff’s failure to comply with the 90-day requirement, plaintiff has yet another opportunity to salvage the action simply by opposing the motion to dismiss with a justifiable excuse” and proof of a potentially meritorious cause of action … .

Here, the plaintiffs’ belief that the action remained stayed in the absence of some affirmative act by the Supreme Court, although erroneous, constituted a justifiable excuse under the circumstances for their failure to respond to the defendant’s 90-day notice. Notably, the 90-day notice was sent only three months after the stay had been lifted, and the record does not otherwise contain evidence of a pattern of persistent neglect or delay in prosecuting the action or an intent to abandon the action … . Furthermore, the plaintiffs established the existence of a potentially meritorious cause of action sounding in strict products liability … . Holness v Gigglesworld Corp., 2024 NY Slip Op 06031, Second Dept 12-4-24

Practice Point: CPLR 3216 is a forgiving statute which allows but does not require the dismissal of a complaint for failure to comply with a 90-day notice. Here plaintiffs presented an adequate excuse and demonstrated a meritorious cause of action. The complaint should not have been dismissed.

 

You might also like
JUDGE WAS WITHOUT AUTHORITY TO DISMISS THE FORECLOSURE COMPLAINT; ISSUE HAD NOT BEEN JOINED AND THERE WAS NO EVIDENCE PLAINTIFF FAILED TO APPEAR AT A SCHEDULED CONFERENCE (SECOND DEPT).
OUTSTANDING DISCOVERY CONSTITUTED GOOD CAUSE FOR A LATE (POST-NOTE-OF-ISSUE) MOTION FOR SUMMARY JUDGMENT; PLAINTIFF ENTITLED TO SUMMARY JUDGMENT ON THE LABOR LAW 240(1) CAUSE OF ACTION IN THIS LADDER-FALL CASE; DEFENDANTS ENTITLED TO SUMMARY JUDGMENT ON THE LABOR LAW 200 CAUSE OF ACTION (SECOND DEPT). ​
Cause of Action for Fraudulent Concealment Must Allege a Basis for the Existence of a Duty to Disclose
Mechanics of a Motion to Change Venue Explained
NO NOTICE OF CLAIM REQUIRED FOR ALLEGED VIOLATIONS OF 42 USC 1983, STATUTE OF LIMITATIONS EXPIRED ON ASSAULT AND BATTERY, PERMISSION TO FILE LATE NOTICE OF CLAIM ON THE REMAINING STATE CHARGES SHOULD NOT HAVE BEEN GRANTED (SECOND DEPT). ​
PROTECTIVE ORDER PRECLUDING DISCLOSURE OF EVIDENCE TO THE DEFENSE REVERSED (SECOND DEPT).
LEAVE TO FILE A LATE NOTICE OF CLAIM WAS PROPERLY GRANTED IN THIS CANCER TREATMENT MALPRACTICE ACTION, WHERE THE ALLEGED MALPRACTICE IS APPARENT FROM THE MEDICAL RECORDS, THE RECORDS CONSTITUTE ACTUAL KNOWLEDGE OF THE CLAIM (SECOND DEPT).
THE BANK’S PROOF OF COMPLIANCE WITH THE NOTICE REQUIREMENTS OF RPAPL 1304 IN THIS FORECLOSURE ACTION WAS INSUFFICIENT; THE BUSINESS RECORDS REFERRED TO IN THE AFFIDAVIT WERE NOT PRODUCED (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

PLAINTIFF DID NOT PROVE DEFENDANT OWNER OF DEFENDANT CORPORATION WAS PROPERLY... THE JUDGE SHOULD NOT HAVE DENIED THE MOTION TO DISMISS THE ARTICLE 78 PETITION/COMPLAINT...