From Casetext: Smarter Legal Research

Sanchez v. Serje

Appellate Division of the Supreme Court of New York, Second Department
Nov 30, 2010
78 A.D.3d 1155 (N.Y. App. Div. 2010)

Opinion

No. 2010-01102.

November 30, 2010.

In an action, inter alia, to recover damages for medical malpractice and wrongful death, the plaintiffs appeal from a judgment of the Supreme Court, Kings County (Spodek, J.), dated December 16, 2009, which, upon an order of the same court dated August 20, 2009, denying their motion to vacate the dismissal of the action pursuant to CPLR 3216, to restore the action to the calendar, to vacate a 90-day demand, and to extend their time to serve and file a note of issue, and granting the defendant's cross motion to dismiss the action pursuant to CPLR 3216, is in favor of the defendant and against them dismissing the complaint.

Joseph Dubinsky, New York, N.Y., for appellants. Aaronson, Rappaport, Feinstein Deutsch, LLP, New York, N.Y. (Steven C. Mandell of counsel), for respondent.

Before: Rivera, J.P., Covello, Eng, Leventhal and Austin, JJ.


Ordered that the judgment is affirmed, with costs.

In an order dated March 16, 2007, the Supreme Court extended the plaintiffs' time to file a note of issue to June 27, 2007. The plaintiffs failed to file a note of issue by that date and the action was dismissed on July 13, 2007, upon the court's own motion. The dismissal of the action on July 13, 2007, was not authorized pursuant to CPLR 3216 because the March 16, 2007, order did not advise the plaintiffs that the failure to comply with the demand would serve as the basis for a motion to dismiss the action ( see Ratway v Donnenfeld, 43 AD3d 465; Heifetz v Godoy, 38 AD3d 605; Wollman v Berliner, 29 AD3d 786; Delgado v New York City Hous. Auth., 21 AD3d 522). The defendant thereafter served a valid 90-day demand pursuant to CPLR 3216 on June 24, 2008.

Upon receipt of the 90-day demand, the plaintiffs were required to comply with it either by filing a timely note of issue or by moving, before the default date, to vacate the demand or to extend the 90-day period pursuant to CPLR 2004 ( see Benitez v Mutual of Am. Life Ins. Co., 24 AD3d 708; Bokhari v Home Depot U.S.A., 4 AD3d 381; McKinney v Corby, 295 AD2d 580, 581). While the plaintiffs timely moved, inter alia, to vacate the 90-day demand or to extend the time within which to file the note of issue, their motion was properly denied and the defendant's cross motion to dismiss the complaint was properly granted in light of the lengthy delay in prosecuting this action, the absence of good cause for the inactivity in this case, and the prejudice to the defendant ( see Doe v Board of Educ. of Longwood Cent. Schools, 52 AD3d 767; Harrington v Toback, 34 AD3d 640, 641; Florestal v Little Flower Children's Servs. of N.Y., 9 AD3d 348; Acevedo v DePena, 6 AD3d 636; Dhaliwal v Long Boat Taxi, 305 AD2d 449).


Summaries of

Sanchez v. Serje

Appellate Division of the Supreme Court of New York, Second Department
Nov 30, 2010
78 A.D.3d 1155 (N.Y. App. Div. 2010)
Case details for

Sanchez v. Serje

Case Details

Full title:MILDRED SANCHEZ et al., Appellants, v. JORGE SERJE, Respondent

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

Date published: Nov 30, 2010

Citations

78 A.D.3d 1155 (N.Y. App. Div. 2010)
2010 N.Y. Slip Op. 8924
913 N.Y.S.2d 919

Citing Cases

Saginor v. Brook

Upon receipt of the 90–day demands, the plaintiff was required to comply with them either by filing a timely…

Saginor v. Brook

The parties dispute whether Brook's 90–day demand was received on January 7, or January 8, 2009. Upon receipt…