From Casetext: Smarter Legal Research

Kel Management Corp. v. Rogers & Wells

Court of Appeals of the State of New York
Feb 7, 1985
64 N.Y.2d 904 (N.Y. 1985)

Summary

In Kel Mgt. Corp. v. Rogers Wells (64 N.Y.2d 904, 905), the Court of Appeals reiterated the rule that, in a motion such as this, an affidavit of merit is an indispensable requisite, as follows: "This court has previously held that a party opposing a CPLR 3012 (b) motion to dismiss based upon law office failure is obligated to submit an affidavit of merit containing evidentiary facts sufficient to establish a prima facie case.

Summary of this case from Estate of Anna A. Ward v. Hoffman

Opinion

Decided February 7, 1985

Appeal from the Appellate Division of the Supreme Court in the First Judicial Department, Edward J. Greenfield, J.

Bruce E. Braverman and Leo P. Larkin, Jr., for appellant.

Sylvester J. Garamella and Vincent P. Rao for respondents.


MEMORANDUM.

The order of the Appellate Division should be reversed, with costs, and the motion to dismiss the complaint granted unconditionally.

This court has previously held that a party opposing a CPLR 3012 (b) motion to dismiss based upon law office failure is obligated to submit an affidavit of merit containing evidentiary facts sufficient to establish a prima facie case. ( Canter v Mulnick, 60 N.Y.2d 689.) Here, plaintiffs served the complaint upon defendant more than three and one-half months past the statutorily required date, and when faced with a CPLR 3012 (b) motion to dismiss, failed to submit an affidavit of merit. Because of this deficiency, it was error, as a matter of law, not to grant the motion to dismiss without condition. ( Stolowitz v Mount Sinai Hosp., 60 N.Y.2d 685, 686; Amodeo v Radler, 59 N.Y.2d 1001; Barasch v Micucci, 49 N.Y.2d 594, 599.) In view of this disposition, we express no view as to the merits of either plaintiffs' underlying claim or proffered justifications for belated service of its complaint.

Question certified answered in the negative.

Chief Judge WACHTLER and Judges JASEN, MEYER, SIMONS, KAYE and ALEXANDER concur in memorandum.

On review of submissions pursuant to section 500.4 of the Rules of the Court of Appeals (22 N.Y.CRR 500.4), order reversed, etc.


Summaries of

Kel Management Corp. v. Rogers & Wells

Court of Appeals of the State of New York
Feb 7, 1985
64 N.Y.2d 904 (N.Y. 1985)

In Kel Mgt. Corp. v. Rogers Wells (64 N.Y.2d 904, 905), the Court of Appeals reiterated the rule that, in a motion such as this, an affidavit of merit is an indispensable requisite, as follows: "This court has previously held that a party opposing a CPLR 3012 (b) motion to dismiss based upon law office failure is obligated to submit an affidavit of merit containing evidentiary facts sufficient to establish a prima facie case.

Summary of this case from Estate of Anna A. Ward v. Hoffman
Case details for

Kel Management Corp. v. Rogers & Wells

Case Details

Full title:KEL MANAGEMENT CORP. et al., Respondents, v. ROGERS WELLS, Appellant

Court:Court of Appeals of the State of New York

Date published: Feb 7, 1985

Citations

64 N.Y.2d 904 (N.Y. 1985)
488 N.Y.S.2d 156
477 N.E.2d 458

Citing Cases

Imperiale v. Prezioso

On the other hand, when the delay in serving the complaint is more than a few days, the failure to timely…

Imperiale v. Prezioso

On the other hand, when the delay in serving the complaint is more than a few days, the failure to timely…