From Casetext: Smarter Legal Research

Cobbs v. Lefrak Organization, Inc.

Appellate Division of the Supreme Court of New York, Second Department
Dec 14, 1981
85 A.D.2d 616 (N.Y. App. Div. 1981)

Opinion

December 14, 1981


In an action to recover damages for false arrest, assault and malicious prosecution, defendant appeals from an order of the Supreme Court, Queens County (Lerner, J.), dated May 19, 1981, which denied, as moot, its motion to dismiss the action for failure to serve a complaint within 20 days after a demand was made (see CPLR 3012, subd [b]). Order reversed on the law, with $50 costs and disbursements, and defendant's motion to dismiss is granted. A plaintiff who seeks to serve a complaint, where a demand has been made, after expiration of the 20-day statutory period specified in CPLR 3012 (subd [b]), must (1) demonstrate that there was a reasonable excuse for the delay, and (2) make a prima facie showing of legal merit. (See Barasch v Micucci, 49 N.Y.2d 594; Bruno v Village of Port Chester, 77 A.D.2d 580.) Plaintiffs have offered no excuse for their delay, and have set forth insufficient evidentiary facts to establish a prima facie showing of legal merit. Special Term improperly denied defendant's motion to dismiss (see Verre v Rosas, 47 N.Y.2d 795). Mollen, P.J., Gulotta, Weinstein and Thompson, JJ., concur.


Summaries of

Cobbs v. Lefrak Organization, Inc.

Appellate Division of the Supreme Court of New York, Second Department
Dec 14, 1981
85 A.D.2d 616 (N.Y. App. Div. 1981)
Case details for

Cobbs v. Lefrak Organization, Inc.

Case Details

Full title:FRANKLIN COBBS et al., Respondents v. LEFRAK ORGANIZATION, INC., Appellant

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

Date published: Dec 14, 1981

Citations

85 A.D.2d 616 (N.Y. App. Div. 1981)

Citing Cases

Sotirakis v. United Services Automobile Ass'n

Order reversed, on the law, with $50 costs and disbursements, and motion to dismiss granted. In order to…

Johnson v. Viola

As the court noted, the failure to serve was wholly unexplained. Even if it is accepted that plaintiff made a…