Opinion
2018–12335 Index No. 700334/16
10-23-2019
WESTERN UNION NORTH AMERICA, etc., Respondent, v. Eun Hee A. CHANG, etc., et al., Defendants, Ming Hua Tarallo, etc., Appellant.
Christopher Riley, White Plains, NY, for appellant. David J. Finkler, New York, NY, for respondent.
Christopher Riley, White Plains, NY, for appellant.
David J. Finkler, New York, NY, for respondent.
REINALDO E. RIVERA, J.P., SYLVIA O. HINDS–RADIX, HECTOR D. LASALLE, ANGELA G. IANNACCI, JJ.
DECISION & ORDER In an action, inter alia, to recover damages for breach of contract, the defendant Ming Hua Tarallo appeals from an order of the Supreme Court, Queens County (Denis J. Butler, J.), entered September 11, 2018. The order, insofar as appealed from, denied the motion of the defendant Ming Hua Tarallo pursuant to CPLR 3216 to dismiss the complaint insofar as asserted against that defendant.
ORDERED that the order is affirmed insofar as appealed from, with costs.
" CPLR 3216 is, by its terms, extremely forgiving in that it never requires, but merely authorizes, the Supreme Court to dismiss a plaintiff's action based on the plaintiff's unreasonable neglect to proceed" ( Davis v. Goodsell, 6 A.D.3d 382, 382–383, 774 N.Y.S.2d 568 [internal quotation marks omitted]; see CPLR 3216[a], [e] ; Di Simone v. Good Samaritan Hosp., 100 N.Y.2d 632, 633, 768 N.Y.S.2d 735, 800 N.E.2d 1102 ; Baczkowski v. Collins Constr. Co., 89 N.Y.2d 499, 504–505, 655 N.Y.S.2d 848, 678 N.E.2d 460 ; Lee v. Rad, 132 A.D.3d 643, 17 N.Y.S.3d 489 ). "While the statute prohibits the Supreme Court from dismissing an action based on neglect to proceed whenever the plaintiff has shown a justifiable excuse for the delay in the prosecution of the action and a meritorious cause of action, such a dual showing is not strictly necessary to avoid dismissal of the action" ( Altman v. Donnenfeld, 119 A.D.3d 828, 828, 990 N.Y.S.2d 542 [citations omitted]; see Baczkowski v. Collins Constr. Co., 89 N.Y.2d at 503–505, 655 N.Y.S.2d 848, 678 N.E.2d 460 ; Vera v. New York El. & Elec. Corp., 150 A.D.3d 927, 928, 55 N.Y.S.3d 114 ; Gordon v. Ratner, 97 A.D.3d 634, 635, 948 N.Y.S.2d 627 ; Davis v. Goodsell, 6 A.D.3d at 383–384, 774 N.Y.S.2d 568 ).
We agree with the Supreme Court's determination that the plaintiff demonstrated a justifiable excuse for not complying with the 90–day notice. Under the particular circumstances of this case, "where there was no evidence of a pattern of persistent neglect or delay in prosecuting the action, or any intent to abandon the action," the court providently exercised its discretion in excusing the plaintiff's failure to comply with the 90–day notice ( Vera v. New York El. & Elec. Corp., 150 A.D.3d at 928, 55 N.Y.S.3d 114 ; see Lee v. Rad, 132 A.D.3d 643, 17 N.Y.S.3d 489 ; Rossi v. Scheinbach, 128 A.D.3d 791, 9 N.Y.S.3d 366 ; Altman v. Donnenfeld, 119 A.D.3d at 828, 990 N.Y.S.2d 542 ; Gordon v. Ratner, 97 A.D.3d at 635, 948 N.Y.S.2d 627 ).
RIVERA, J.P., HINDS–RADIX, LASALLE and IANNACCI, JJ., concur.