From Casetext: Smarter Legal Research

Chaing v. Fendt

Appellate Division of the Supreme Court of New York, Second Department
Nov 16, 1992
187 A.D.2d 574 (N.Y. App. Div. 1992)

Opinion

November 16, 1992

Appeal from the Supreme Court, Queens County (Katz, J.).


Ordered that the order is reversed, as a matter of discretion, with costs, the motion is granted, the complaint is dismissed insofar as it is asserted against the appellants, and the action against the remaining defendant is severed.

The Supreme Court improvidently exercised its discretion in denying the appellants' motion to dismiss the complaint for failure to prosecute. CPLR 3216 permits a party to serve upon the adversary a written demand that he or she file a note of issue within 90 days, or risk dismissal (see, Papadopoulas v R.B. Supply Corp., 152 A.D.2d 552; Carte v Segall, 134 A.D.2d 397). In order to avoid being held in default, a party served with a 90-day notice must either comply with the notice by filing a note of issue, or moving, before the default date, to vacate the notice or to extend the 90-day period (see, Kirkland v Community Hosp., 187 A.D.2d 566 [decided herewith]; Wilson v Nembhardt, 180 A.D.2d 731; Turman v Amity OBG Assocs., 170 A.D.2d 668; Papadopoulas v R.B. Supply Corp., supra).

Having failed to pursue any of the foregoing options after being served with a 90-day notice pursuant to CPLR 3216, in order to defeat the appellants' motion for dismissal, the plaintiffs were obligated to demonstrate both a justifiable excuse for their failure to comply with the notice, and the existence of a meritorious cause of action (see, CPLR 3215 [e]; M.P.S. Mktg. Servs. v Champion Intl. Corp., 176 A.D.2d 250; Turman v Amity OBG Assocs., supra). However, the proffered excuse here — that the plaintiffs were engaged in efforts to sell their residence in order to mitigate the damages attributable to the appellants' alleged negligence — did not justify their failure to timely respond to the 90-day notice (see, Wilson v Nembhardt, supra; Franck v CNY Anesthesia Group, 175 A.D.2d 605; M.P.S. Mktg. Servs. v Champion Intl. Corp., supra; Papadopoulas v R.B. Supply Corp., supra). Thompson, J.P., Eiber, Copertino and Pizzuto, JJ., concur.


Summaries of

Chaing v. Fendt

Appellate Division of the Supreme Court of New York, Second Department
Nov 16, 1992
187 A.D.2d 574 (N.Y. App. Div. 1992)
Case details for

Chaing v. Fendt

Case Details

Full title:SHU CHAING CHAN et al., Respondents, v. JOHN FENDT, Defendant, and FIRST…

Court:Appellate Division of the Supreme Court of New York, Second Department

Date published: Nov 16, 1992

Citations

187 A.D.2d 574 (N.Y. App. Div. 1992)
589 N.Y.S.2d 1007

Citing Cases

Smith v. City of New York

To avoid being held in default, a party served with a 90-day notice pursuant to CPLR 3216 must either comply…

Rubin v. Baglio

To avoid being held in default, a plaintiff served with a 90-day notice must either comply with the notice…