Balgley v. Cammarata
Cases that cite this one
12 later published cases cite this decision.
- Perez-Faringer v. Heilman (Appellate Division of the Supreme Court of New York 2010)
- Carducci v. Russell (Appellate Division of the Supreme Court of New York 2014)
- Perez v. Geico Insurance (Appellate Division of the Supreme Court of New York 2013)
- Perez v. Geico Insurance (Appellate Division of the Supreme Court of New York 2013)
- Rock v. New York City Transit Authority (Appellate Division of the Supreme Court of New York 2010)
- Moray v. Koven & Krause (Appellate Division of the Supreme Court of New York 2009)
- Splinters, Inc. v. Greenfield (Appellate Division of the Supreme Court of New York 2009)
- Eglit v. County of Westchester (Appellate Division of the Supreme Court of New York 2007)
- Giordano v. Vanchieri & Perrier (Appellate Division of the Supreme Court of New York 2005)
- Maldonado v. Suffolk County (Appellate Division of the Supreme Court of New York 2005)
- Tutora v. Schirripa (Appellate Division of the Supreme Court of New York 2003)
- Henig v. Good Samaritan Medical Center (Appellate Division of the Supreme Court of New York 2003)
This list shows which later cases cite this one. It does not say how they treated it, and no review of that has been done. Not a substitute for Shepard’s or KeyCite — verify before relying.
Opinion of the Court
In an action, inter alia, to recover damages for medical malpractice, the plaintiff appeals from an order of the Supreme Court, Kings County (Cammer, J.), dated July 26, 2001, which granted the respective motions of the defendants Angelo Cammarata and John Kehoe, the defendant Sheldon Schechter, and the defendant Adrian Baranetsky, to dismiss the action pursuant to CPLR 3012 (b) for failure to timely serve a complaint.
Ordered that the order is affirmed, with costs.
“To avoid dismissal for failure to timely serve a complaint after a demand for the complaint has been made 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” (Chmielnik v Rosenberg, 269 AD2d 555; see also Kel Mgt. Corp. v Rogers & Wells, 64 NY2d 904). The plaintiff failed to demonstrate the existence of a meritorious cause of action. Therefore, the Supreme Court properly granted the respective motions to dismiss the complaint. Altman, J.P., S. Miller, McGinity, Schmidt and Rivera, JJ., concur.
Case-law data current through December 31, 2025. Source: CourtListener bulk data.