You are here: / / Court Has Discretion to Deny a Motion to Dismiss for Failure to Prosecute...

Court Has Discretion to Deny a Motion to Dismiss for Failure to Prosecute Pursuant to CPLR 3216 Even in the Absence of an Adequate Excuse and a Showing of a Potentially Meritorious Cause of Action

In finding plaintiff did not intend to abandon the action, the Second Department explained the “extremely forgiving” nature of CPLR 3216:

Where a 90-day demand to resume prosecution of an action pursuant to CPLR 3216(b)(3) has been properly served, a plaintiff may avoid dismissal, as a matter of law, by either timely filing a note of issue or moving, before the default date, to vacate the notice or to extend the 90-day period (see CPLR 3216[c]…). Even where a plaintiff has failed to pursue either of these options, however, “the statute prohibits the Supreme Court from dismissing a complaint based on failure to prosecute whenever the plaintiff has shown a justifiable excuse for the delay and the existence of a potentially meritorious cause of action” … .

Moreover, 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” … . Under the plain language of CPLR 3216, a court retains some “residual discretion” to deny a motion to dismiss, even when a plaintiff fails to comply with the 90-day requirement and additionally fails to proffer an adequate excuse for the delay or a potentially meritorious cause of action … . Thus, while the statute prohibits the Supreme Court from dismissing a complaint based on failure to prosecute whenever the plaintiff has shown a justifiable excuse for the delay and the existence of a potentially meritorious cause of action (see CPLR 3216[e]…), “such a dual showing is not strictly necessary in order for the plaintiff to escape such a dismissal” … .

Here, the record demonstrates affirmative steps taken by the plaintiff to continue the prosecution of this action that are inconsistent with an intent to abandon it. Ramon v Zangari, 2014 NY Slip Op 02420, 2nd Dept 4-9-14

 

You might also like
THE BANK DID NOT DEMONSTRATE COMPLIANCE WITH THE NOTICE REQUIREMENTS OF RPAPL 1304 (SECOND DEPT).
DEFENDANT DOCTORS’ MOTIONS FOR SUMMARY JUDGMENT IN THIS MEDICAL MALPRACTICE ACTION SHOULD NOT HAVE BEEN GRANTED; ONE DOCTOR DID NOT DEMONSTRATE HE DID NOT PARTICIPATE IN THE RESUSCITATION OF THE NEWBORN; THERE WAS A QUESTION OF FACT WHETHER A SECOND DOCTOR EMPLOYED THE PROPER RESUSCITATION METHOD (SECOND DEPT).
DEFENDANT DID NOT COME FORWARD WITH A NON-NEGLIGENT EXPLANATION FOR STRIKING THE REAR OF PLAINTFF’S STOPPED CAR; PLAINTIFF’S MOTION FOR SUMMARY JUDGMENT SHOULD HAVE BEEN GRANTED (SECOND DEPT).
CITY WAS NOTIFIED OF THE ESSENTIAL FACTS OF PETITIONER’S CLAIM BY A TIMELY NOTICE OF CLAIM FILED BY THE OTHER PARTY IN THIS TRAFFIC ACCIDENT CASE, PETITIONER’S REQUEST TO FILE A LATE NOTICE OF CLAIM SHOULD HAVE BEEN GRANTED (SECOND DEPT).
THE CUSTODY AWARD SHOULD NOT HAVE BEEN MADE, SUA SPONTE, WITHOUT A PLENARY HEARING; WHERE A CUSTODY AWARD IS MADE WITHOUT A HEARING THE COURT SHOULD ARTICULATE THE FACTORS CONSIDERED (SECOND DEPT). ​
Defendant’s Admissions Re: Uncharged Sex Offenses Justified Upward Departure from the Presumptive Level—Criteria for Upward Departures Explained
DEFENDANT FAILED TO PRESENT EVIDENCE THAT THE AREA OF PLAINTIFF’S SLIP AND FALL WAS INSPECTED OR CLEARED OF ICE AND SNOW DURING THE TWO DAYS PRIOR TO THE FALL; THEREFORE DEFENDANT DID NOT DEMONSTRATE A LACK OF CONSTRUCTIVE NOTICE AS A MATTER OF LAW (SECOND DEPT).
Succinct Description of Principles of Governmental Function Immunity

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

Failure to Allege a Favorable Result Would Have Obtained “But For”... Shareholder in a Cooperative Apartment Corporation Had Right to Inspect Boo...