You are here: / / ALTHOUGH THERE WAS PROOF THE 90-DAY NOTICES WERE MAILED TO THE PRO SE PLAINTIFFS,...
,

ALTHOUGH THERE WAS PROOF THE 90-DAY NOTICES WERE MAILED TO THE PRO SE PLAINTIFFS, THERE WAS ALSO PROOF THE MAIL WAS NOT DELIVERED AND WAS RETURNED; WITHOUT PROOF PLAINTIFFS ACTUALLY RECEIVED THE 90-DAY NOTICES, THE COURT SHOULD NOT HAVE DISMISSED THE ACTION FOR WANT OF PROSECUTION (SECOND DEPT).

The Second Department, reversing Supreme Court, determined the motion to dismiss the action for want of prosecution should not have been granted. Although there was proof defendants (the Cohens) mailed the 90-day notices to the pro se plaintiffs, there was no proof the notices were received (the mailings were returned):

In August 2023, more than a year after the expiration of the stay, the Cohens moved … pursuant to CPLR 3216 to dismiss the complaint for failure to prosecute. In support of the motion, the Cohens submitted evidence that in August 2022 they mailed 90-day demands pursuant to CPLR 3216(b)(3) to the plaintiffs, who were then pro se, by certified mail. The Cohens also submitted evidence, however, that the mailings were returned to them. The United States Postal Service tracking history submitted by the Cohens indicated that one delivery was attempted and that five days later a reminder was sent to schedule redelivery before the mailings were returned to the sender. * * *

CPLR 3216 permits a court to dismiss an action for want of prosecution only after the court or the defendant has served the plaintiff with a written demand requiring the plaintiff “to resume prosecution of the action and to serve and file a note of issue within [90] days after receipt of such demand” … . “Notably, the time within which the plaintiff must act runs from the receipt, and not the service of the demand” … . Here, in support of their motion, the Cohens submitted proof that the 90-day demands were not received by the plaintiffs. Kurbonov v Cohen, 2026 NY Slip Op 01044, Second Dept 2-25-26

Practice Point: To support a motion to dismiss for want of prosecution, the defendant must proof the 90-day notice was actually received by the pro se plaintiff. Proof of mailing is not enough.

 

You might also like
DEFENDANTS DEMONSTRATED THEY DID NOT HAVE ACTUAL OR CONSTRUCTIVE NOTICE OF THE WATER ON THE FLOOR WHERE PLAINTIFF ALLEGEDLY SLIPPED AND FELL; DEFENDANTS’ MOTION FOR SUMMARY JUDGMENT SHOULD HAVE BEEN GRANTED (SECOND DEPT). ​
SUPREME COURT SHOULD NOT HAVE DISMISSED THIS DENTAL MALPRACTICE ACTION ON THE GROUND THE PLAINTIFFS’ EXPERT WAS NOT QUALIFIED TO RENDER AN OPINION; ANY WEAKNESSES IN THE EXPERT’S AFFIDAVIT WENT TO ITS WEIGHT NOT ITS ADMISSIBILITY (SECOND DEPT).
MOTHER FAILED TO APPEAR IN THE PROCEEDING TO DETERMINE FATHER’S PETITION FOR MODIFICATION OF CUSTODY; THE PETITION WAS GRANTED; BUT NO EVIDENCE WAS PRESENTED ON WHETHER MODIFICATION WAS IN THE BEST INTERESTS OF THE CHILDREN; MOTHER’S MOTION TO VACATE THE ORDER GRANTING FATHER’S PETITION SHOULD HAVE BEEN GRANTED (SECOND DEPT).
QUESTION OF FACT WHETHER THE CONTINUOUS REPRESENTATION DOCTRINE TOLLED THE STATUTE OF LIMITATIONS IN THIS LEGAL MALPRACTICE ACTION (SECOND DEPT). ​
THE JUDGE DID NOT HAVE THE AUTHORITY TO, SUA SPONTE, DISMISS THE FORECLOSURE COMPLAINT FOR PLAINTIFF’S ALLEGED FAILURE TO APPEAR AT A STATUS CONFERENCE AND COMPLY WITH THE DIRECTIVE TO MOVE FOR AN ORDER OF REFERENCE BY A SPECIFIED DATE; PRECEDENT TO THE CONTRARY SHOULD NO LONGER BE FOLLOWED (SECOND DEPT).
PLAINTIFF’S DECEDENT, WHO WAS DELIVERING MEALS ON WHEELS IN DEFENDANT’S BUILDING WHEN HE WAS ASSAULTED, ALLEGED THE ASSAILANT WAS AN INTRUDER WHO ENTERED THE BUILDING THROUGH A NEGLIGENTLY MAINTAINED ENTRANCE, THE LANDLORD’S DUTY TO PROTECT TENANTS EXTENDS TO GUESTS OF TENANTS, DEFENDANT’S MOTION FOR SUMMARY JUDGMENT SHOULD NOT HAVE BEEN GRANTED (SECOND DEPT).
ALTHOUGH THE ERRORS WERE NOT PRESERVED, DEFENDANT’S MURDER CONVICTION REVERSED FOR THREE REASONS; FAILURE TO GIVE THE ACCOMPLICE IN FACT JURY INSTRUCTION, PROSECUTORIAL MISCONDUCT, AND INEFFECTIVE ASSISTANCE OF COUNSEL (SECOND DEPT).
DEFENDANT DEMONSTRATED THE ABSENCE OF ACTUAL OR CONSTRUCTIVE NOTICE OF THE ALLEGEDLY SLIPPERY CONDITION IN THIS SLIP AND FALL CASE (FIRST 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

THE PEOPLE DID NOT DEMONSTRATE DEFENDANT’S VEHICLE WAS PROPERLY IMPOUNDED;... PETITIONER, A PROTECTION AND ADVOCACY AGENCY FOR DISABLED PERSONS, WAS NOT ENTITLED...