From Casetext: Smarter Legal Research

Brady v. Benenson Capital Co.

Appellate Division of the Supreme Court of New York, Second Department
Dec 1, 2003
2 A.D.3d 382 (N.Y. App. Div. 2003)

Opinion

2002-11191.

December 1, 2003.

In an action to recover damages for personal injuries, the plaintiff appeals from an order of the Supreme Court, Kings County (Hutcherson, J.), dated October 24, 2002, which granted the motion of the defendants Benenson Capital Co., Charles Benenson, and Robert H. Arnow to dismiss the complaint pursuant to CPLR 3216 insofar as asserted against them and the separate motion of the defendant Schindler Elevator Corporation for the same relief, and denied his cross-motion to compel further disclosure.

Lester P. Hill, P.C. (DiJoseph Portegello, P.C., New York, N.Y. [Arnold E. DiJoseph III] of counsel), for appellant.

Diamond, Cardo, King, Peters Fodera, New York, N.Y. (Deborah F. Peters of counsel), for respondents.

Benenson Capital Co., Charles Benenson, and Robert H. Arnow. Keller, O'Reilly Watson, P.C., Woodbury, N.Y. (Laurence G. McDonnell of counsel), for respondent Schindler Elevator Corporation.

Before: SANDRA L. TOWNES, REINALDO E. RIVERA, JJ.


DECISION ORDER

ORDERED that the order is affirmed, with one bill of costs payable to the respondents appearing separately and filing separate briefs.

Where a party is served with a 90-day notice pursuant to CPLR 3216, it is incumbent upon that party to comply with the notice by filing a note of issue or by moving, before the default date, either to vacate the notice or extend the 90-day period ( see Hayden v. Jones, 244 A.D.2d 316; Rubin v. Baglio, 234 A.D.2d 534; Lopez v. Pathmark Supermarket, 229 A.D.2d 566; Spierto v. Pennisi, 223 A.D.2d 537). Once the specified period has expired, the party wishing to avoid dismissal must demonstrate both a justifiable excuse for the delay in properly responding to the 90-day notice and the existence of a meritorious cause of action ( see CPLR 3216[e]; Hayden v. Jones, supra; Turman v. Amity OBG Assocs., 170 A.D.2d 668; Papadopoulas v. R.B. Supply Corp., 152 A.D.2d 552). Here, the plaintiff failed to demonstrate either a justifiable excuse for the delay or the existence of a meritorious cause of action.

FLORIO, J.P., KRAUSMAN, LUCIANO, TOWNES and RIVERA, JJ., concur.


Summaries of

Brady v. Benenson Capital Co.

Appellate Division of the Supreme Court of New York, Second Department
Dec 1, 2003
2 A.D.3d 382 (N.Y. App. Div. 2003)
Case details for

Brady v. Benenson Capital Co.

Case Details

Full title:MICHAEL BRADY, Appellant, v. BENENSON CAPITAL CO., ET AL., Respondents…

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

Date published: Dec 1, 2003

Citations

2 A.D.3d 382 (N.Y. App. Div. 2003)
767 N.Y.S.2d 787

Citing Cases

Serby v. Long Island Jewish Medical Center

Ordered that the order is reversed, on the law and in the exercise of discretion, with one bill of costs, and…

Randolph v. Cornell

Ordered that the order is reversed, on the law and as an exercise of discretion, with costs, the motion is…