From Casetext: Smarter Legal Research

DeLisa v. Pettinato

Appellate Division of the Supreme Court of New York, Third Department
Jan 7, 1993
189 A.D.2d 988 (N.Y. App. Div. 1993)

Opinion

January 7, 1993

Appeal from the Supreme Court, Montgomery County (White, J.).


Plaintiff's failure to timely comply with defendant's CPLR 3216 90-day demand resulted in the instant motion to dismiss the complaint for failure to prosecute by defendant John C. Pettinato. To avoid dismissal plaintiff was required to demonstrate a justifiable excuse for his delay in complying with the demand and, in addition, to show that his cause of action had legal merit (see, Mason v. Simmons, 139 A.D.2d 880, 881; Charlotte Lake Riv. Assocs. v. American Ins. Co., 130 A.D.2d 947, lv denied 70 N.Y.2d 605). The showing of merit required an affidavit by one with personal knowledge of the facts and required that materials be included in evidentiary form sufficient to defeat a summary judgment motion (see, Schuman v Raymond Corp., 174 A.D.2d 1040, lv denied 78 N.Y.2d 858; Charlotte Lake Riv. Assocs. v. American Ins. Co., supra). We find that the attorney's affidavit, even when considered with the attached police report of the accident, was insufficient to demonstrate that plaintiff has a meritorious cause of action (see, Zent v. Board of Educ., 174 A.D.2d 1047; Juracka v Ferrara, 137 A.D.2d 921, 923, lv dismissed 72 N.Y.2d 840; Aquilino v. Adirondack Tr. Lines, 97 A.D.2d 929).

"Certain business records may be received into evidence without having been authenticated by their maker, but only if those records are certified in accordance with CPLR 4518 (c)" (Matter of Peerless Ins. Co. v. Milloul, 140 A.D.2d 346, 347 [citations omitted]). Reliance upon the police accident report by Supreme Court was therefore error (see, supra, at 346; cf., Zuilkowski v. Sentry Ins., 114 A.D.2d 453, 454). Consequently, Supreme Court abused its discretion in denying Pettinato's motion.

Levine, Crew III, Mahoney and Harvey, JJ., concur. Ordered that the order is reversed, on the law, with costs, motion granted and complaint dismissed against defendant John C. Pettinato.


Summaries of

DeLisa v. Pettinato

Appellate Division of the Supreme Court of New York, Third Department
Jan 7, 1993
189 A.D.2d 988 (N.Y. App. Div. 1993)
Case details for

DeLisa v. Pettinato

Case Details

Full title:RICHARD J. DeLISA, Respondent, v. JOHN C. PETTINATO, Appellant, et al.…

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

Date published: Jan 7, 1993

Citations

189 A.D.2d 988 (N.Y. App. Div. 1993)
592 N.Y.S.2d 843

Citing Cases

R.M. v. D.M.

r affirmation of service. Even putting the lack of signature and proof of service aside, this Court must…

Mrva v. Yavorski

In our view, the affirmation of plaintiffs' counsel, who took sole responsibility for the filing delay and…