Appellate Division of the Supreme Court of New York, 2005

Maldonado v. Suffolk County

Appellate Division of the Supreme Court of New York · Decided November 7, 2005

23 A.D.3d 353; 803 N.Y.S.2d 439

Cases that cite this one

9 later published cases cite this decision.

Carducci v. Russell (Appellate Division of the Supreme Court of New York 2014)
Dayan v. Darche (Appellate Division of the Supreme Court of New York 2012)
Dayan v. Darche (Appellate Division of the Supreme Court of New York 2012)
Perez-Faringer v. Heilman (Appellate Division of the Supreme Court of New York 2010)
Splinters, Inc. v. Greenfield (Appellate Division of the Supreme Court of New York 2009)
Leibowitz v. Glickman (Appellate Division of the Supreme Court of New York 2008)
Aquilar v. Nassau Health Care Corp. (Appellate Division of the Supreme Court of New York 2007)
Bates v. Galligan (Appellate Division of the Supreme Court of New York 2006)
J. Tortorella Swimming Pools, Inc. v. Incredible Coatings Corp. (Appellate Division of the Supreme Court of New York 2006)

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 personal injuries, the plaintiffs appeal from an order of the Supreme Court, Suffolk County (Burke, J.), dated August 2, 2004, which granted the defendant’s motion pursuant to CPLR 3012 (b) to dismiss the action for failure to timely serve a complaint, and denied their cross motion to deem the proposed complaint timely served and to compel compliance with a notice for discovery and inspection.

Ordered that the order is affirmed, with costs.

To avoid dismissal for failure to timely serve a complaint af*354ter 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 Tutora v Schirripa, 1 AD3d 349 [2003]; Dunefsky v Petco Animal Supplies, 303 AD2d 620 [2003]; Balgley v Cammarata, 299 AD2d 432 [2002]). The plaintiffs failed to demonstrate either of these criteria. Accordingly, the Supreme Court properly dismissed the action.

The plaintiffs’ remaining contentions are either without merit or do not warrant a reversal. Schmidt, J.P., Santucci, Krausman and Covello, JJ., concur.

Case-law data current through December 31, 2025. Source: CourtListener bulk data.