From Casetext: Smarter Legal Research

Raccasi v. Kaye

Appellate Division of the Supreme Court of New York, Second Department
Apr 27, 1981
81 A.D.2d 661 (N.Y. App. Div. 1981)

Opinion

April 27, 1981


In a dental malpractice action, defendant appeals from an order of the Supreme Court, Westchester County, dated July 3, 1980, which denied his motion to dismiss the action for want of prosecution. Order reversed, on the law, without costs or disbursements, motion granted, and complaint dismissed, without prejudice to an application at Special Term, upon proper papers, to vacate the order of dismissal, if the plaintiffs be so advised. Plaintiffs' time to move is extended until 30 days after service upon them of a copy of the order to be made hereon, with notice of entry. Misunderstandings between counsel concerning extensions of the time to file a note of issue and the intention of completing pretrial discovery prior thereto, may have served as a justifiable excuse for filing said note of issue approximately one month after the expiration of the statutory 90-day period. Nevertheless, plaintiffs' failure to present Special Term with a sufficient affidavit of merits in opposition to the motion to dismiss the complaint was fatal. Absent such an affidavit, the motion should have been granted. (See Keating v Smith, 20 A.D.2d 141.) Hopkins, J.P., Mangano, Rabin and Weinstein, JJ., concur.


Summaries of

Raccasi v. Kaye

Appellate Division of the Supreme Court of New York, Second Department
Apr 27, 1981
81 A.D.2d 661 (N.Y. App. Div. 1981)
Case details for

Raccasi v. Kaye

Case Details

Full title:NANCY RACCASI et al., Respondents, v. FREDERICK KAYE, Appellant

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

Date published: Apr 27, 1981

Citations

81 A.D.2d 661 (N.Y. App. Div. 1981)

Citing Cases

Vashkevich v. Serrano

The Second Department has held that a plaintiff's failure to present with a sufficient affidavit of merit in…

Billings v. Berkshire Mutual Insurance Co.

Although Supreme Court did not address this standard in its decision, our review of the record nonetheless…