Opinion
June 23, 1997
Appeal from the Supreme Court, Kings County (Vinik, J.).
Ordered that the order is reversed insofar as appealed from, on the law, with costs, the branch of the motion is granted, and the complaint is dismissed insofar as asserted against the defendant Esther Gelbelman a/k/a Esther Fuchs a/k/a Esther Bazion without prejudice, and the action against the remaining defendants is severed.
The plaintiff commenced this action by purported service of a summons and complaint in December 1992 during the six-month transition period following the effective date of the commencement-by-filing system in New York ( see, L 1992, ch 216). Pursuant to the clear language of Laws of 1992 (ch 216, § 27 [b]), the plaintiff was required to pay the index number fee on or before December 31, 1992, or the action was to "be deemed dismissed without prejudice" (L 1992, ch 216, § 27 [b]). It is undisputed that the plaintiff did not pay the requisite fee and did not file his papers until February 19, 1993. The defendant subsequently moved, inter alia, to dismiss the complaint insofar as asserted against her based on the plaintiff's failure to timely pay the fee, but the court denied the motion and deemed the payment and filing timely made nunc pro tunc. We reverse.
It is well settled that a failure to timely pay the index number fee pursuant to Laws of 1992 (ch 216, § 27 [b]) results in a dismissal which is automatic and self-executing ( see, Gilligan v. Reers, 231 A.D.2d 673; Hennelly v. Crossland Sav. Bank, 231 A.D.2d 492; Mohammed v. Elassal, 226 A.D.2d 509; see generally, Long v. Quinn, 234 A.D.2d 520; Srsich v. Newman, 232 A.D.2d 398; Matter of Winston v. Freshwater Wetlands Appeals Bd., 224 A.D.2d 160; Matter of Barsalow v. City of Troy, 208 A.D.2d 1144). Accordingly, the plaintiff's action was dismissed as of January 1, 1993, and there was no action pending within which the Supreme Court could authorize the nunc pro tunc payment and filing ( see, e.g., Gilligan v. Reers, supra; Hennelly v Crossland Sav. Bank, supra; Mohammed v. Elassal, supra).
We have considered the plaintiff's remaining contentions and find them to be without merit.
Miller, J.P., Copertino, Sullivan and Altman, JJ., concur.