Opinion
March 23, 1999
Appeal from the Supreme Court, New York County (Louise Gruner Gans, J.).
The grant of defendants' motion to dismiss was proper since plaintiff failed to make the requisite showing, in support of its cross motion for leave to serve its complaint more than twenty days subsequent to defendants' service of their demand therefor, that it had a reasonable excuse for its delay and a meritorious cause of action ( see, CPLR 3012 [b]; Wess v. Olympia York Realty Corp., 201 A.D.2d 365). The record does not support plaintiff's claim that its delay was in part caused by defendant sellers' failure to respond to its requests for information. Defendants did in fact respond in a definitive manner, and plaintiff thereafter made no additional inquiries, letting four months pass between service of the summons with notice and the verified complaint. Further, plaintiff's bare allegation that defendants knew of a latent defect in the conveyed premises is insufficient to make out a prima facie claim for fraud based on active concealment ( cf., Stambovsky v. Ackley, 169 A.D.2d 254); the necessary allegation that defendants affirmatively thwarted plaintiff purchaser's performance of its obligation, pursuant to the doctrine of caveat emptor, diligently to inspect the premises for defects, is completely absent from the complaint ( see, London v. Courduff, 141 A.D.2d 803, lv dismissed 73 N.Y.2d 809).
Concur — Rosenberger, J. P., Nardelli, Williams and Wallach, JJ.