From Casetext: Smarter Legal Research

Sturkey v. Ramdas

Appellate Division of the Supreme Court of New York, Second Department
Jul 21, 2003
307 A.D.2d 310 (N.Y. App. Div. 2003)

Opinion

2002-06932

Submitted May 14, 2003.

July 21, 2003.

In an action to recover damages for personal injuries, etc., the defendant appeals from an order of the Supreme Court, Queens County (Price, J.), dated March 13, 2002, which denied his motion to dismiss the complaint pursuant to CPLR 3216 for failure to prosecute.

Kelly, Rode Kelly, LLP, Mineola, N.Y. (Loris Zeppieri of counsel), for appellant.

Before: FRED T. SANTUCCI, J.P., NANCY E. SMITH, DANIEL F. LUCIANO, ROBERT W. SCHMIDT, WILLIAM F. MASTRO, JJ.


DECISION ORDER

ORDERED that the order is reversed, on the law, with costs, the motion is granted, and the complaint is dismissed.

The plaintiffs, having been served with a 90-day demand pursuant to CPLR 3216(b)(3), were required to comply with the demand by filing a note of issue or by moving, before the default date, either to vacate the demand or to extend the 90-day period ( see Raffa v. Cook, 289 A.D.2d 385; Chong Suk Rose v. Heil Trailer Intl., 284 A.D.2d 445). The plaintiffs failed to meet any of these requirements. In order to defeat the defendant's subsequent motion to dismiss, the plaintiffs were required to demonstrate a justifiable excuse for the delay in properly responding to the demand and the existence of a meritorious action ( see Raffa v. Cook, supra). The plaintiffs did neither. Accordingly, the defendant's motion to dismiss should have been granted.

SANTUCCI, J.P., SMITH, LUCIANO, SCHMIDT and MASTRO, JJ., concur.


Summaries of

Sturkey v. Ramdas

Appellate Division of the Supreme Court of New York, Second Department
Jul 21, 2003
307 A.D.2d 310 (N.Y. App. Div. 2003)
Case details for

Sturkey v. Ramdas

Case Details

Full title:CANTRES STURKEY, ETC., ET AL., respondents, v. KENNETH RAMDAS, appellant

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

Date published: Jul 21, 2003

Citations

307 A.D.2d 310 (N.Y. App. Div. 2003)
762 N.Y.S.2d 520

Citing Cases

Katina, Inc. v. Town of Hempstead

Where a party is served with a 90-day notice pursuant to CPLR 3216, it is incumbent upon that party to…

Douglas v. J.C. Penny Co., Inc.

Where a party is served with a 90-day notice pursuant to CPLR 3216, it is incumbent upon that party to…