New York Court of Appeals, 1979

Verre v. Rosas

New York Court of Appeals · Decided May 10, 1979

47 N.Y.2d 795; 391 N.E.2d 1010; 417 N.Y.S.2d 929; 1979 N.Y. LEXIS 2059

Cases that cite this one

16 later published cases cite this decision.

Aponte v. Raychuk (Appellate Division of the Supreme Court of New York 1991)
Bittinger v. Erie Ins. Co. (Appellate Division of the Supreme Court of New York 2019)
Klein v. Actors & Directors Lab (Appellate Division of the Supreme Court of New York 1983)
Ferrigno v. St. Charles Hospital (Appellate Division of the Supreme Court of New York 1982)
Crucilla v. Howe Richardson Scale Co. (Appellate Division of the Supreme Court of New York 1981)
Mandy Pear, Ltd. v. Duca Realty Corp. (Appellate Division of the Supreme Court of New York 1981)
Sprague v. Luna Park Co-op (Appellate Division of the Supreme Court of New York 1981)
Lee v. City of New York (Appellate Division of the Supreme Court of New York 1981)
Santana v. Prospect Hospital (Appellate Division of the Supreme Court of New York 1981)
Cobbs v. Lefrak Organization, Inc. (Appellate Division of the Supreme Court of New York 1981)
Barasch v. Micucci (N.Y. 1980)
Merchandising Presentation, Inc. v. Blumenfeld (Appellate Division of the Supreme Court of New York 1980)
Nobisso v. Freed (Appellate Division of the Supreme Court of New York 1980)
Wolfe v. Town of Hempstead Department of Parks & Recreation (Appellate Division of the Supreme Court of New York 1980)
Williams v. Howard (Appellate Division of the Supreme Court of New York 1980)
Block v. New York City Health & Hospitals Corp. (Appellate Division of the Supreme Court of New York 1980)

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

OPINION OF THE COURT

Memorandum.

The order of the Appellate Division should be affirmed, with costs.

Although plaintiffs satisfied the requirement that an affidavit of merit be submitted on an application to be relieved of their default, they offer no valid legal excuse for their delay. A summons was served just one week before the expiration of the three-year Statute of Limitations. Three and one-half months later defendants served a demand for a complaint. Plaintiffs ignored this demand for over 10 months and it was *796only when they were served with the present motion to dismiss that they were aroused to serve their pleading. As excuse for the default plaintiffs’ attorneys advance only the assertion that they are engaged mostly in defense practice and that "this plaintiffs file was inadvertently not timely diaried for a complaint”.

The absence of any reasonable excuse for plaintiffs’ delay is determinative; there is no requisite that prejudice be shown before a motion to dismiss is granted in a case of this nature. Accordingly we cannot say that it was error to grant defendant’s motion to dismiss the action as a matter of law.

Chief Judge Cooke and Judges Jasen, Gabrielli, Jones, Wachtler and Fuchsberg concur in a memorandum.

Order affirmed.

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