From Casetext: Smarter Legal Research

Tutora v. Schirripa

Appellate Division of the Supreme Court of New York, Second Department
Nov 3, 2003
1 A.D.3d 349 (N.Y. App. Div. 2003)

Opinion

2002-09813

Submitted September 24, 2003.

November 3, 2003.

In an action to recover damages for medical malpractice, the plaintiff appeals from an order of the Supreme Court, Westchester County (Murphy, J.), entered September 24, 2002, which granted the defendant's motion pursuant to CPLR 3012(b) to dismiss the action for failure to timely serve a complaint, and denied his cross motion to enlarge his time to serve a complaint.

Gregory Menillo, New Rochelle, N.Y. (Robert E. Sokolski of counsel), for appellant.

Rende, Ryan Downes, LLP, White Plains, N.Y. (Roland T. Koke of counsel), for respondent.

Before: FRED T. SANTUCCI, J.P., GLORIA GOLDSTEIN, ROBERT W. SCHMIDT, BARRY A. COZIER, JJ.


DECISION ORDER

ORDERED that the order is affirmed, with costs.

It is well settled that to avoid dismissal for failure to serve a complaint after a demand therefor has been served pursuant to CPLR 3012(b), a plaintiff must demonstrate both a reasonable excuse for the delay in serving the complaint and a meritorious cause of action ( see Dunefsky v. Petco Animal Supplies, 303 A.D.2d 620; Balgley v. Cammarata, 299 A.D.2d 432; Miraglia v. County of Nassau, 295 A.D.2d 411). The plaintiff failed to show the existence of a meritorious cause of action. Accordingly, the Supreme Court properly dismissed the action.

SANTUCCI, J.P., GOLDSTEIN, SCHMIDT and COZIER, JJ., concur.


Summaries of

Tutora v. Schirripa

Appellate Division of the Supreme Court of New York, Second Department
Nov 3, 2003
1 A.D.3d 349 (N.Y. App. Div. 2003)
Case details for

Tutora v. Schirripa

Case Details

Full title:ANTHONY TUTORA, appellant, v. GEORGE T. SCHIRRIPA, respondent

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

Date published: Nov 3, 2003

Citations

1 A.D.3d 349 (N.Y. App. Div. 2003)
766 N.Y.S.2d 574

Citing Cases

Leibowitz v. Glickman

Ordered that the order is reversed, on the law, with costs, that branch of the defendant's motion which was…

Splinters v. Greenfield

The Supreme Court improvidently exercised its discretion in denying the branch of the defendants' motion…