Learn About the Law
Get help with your legal needs
FindLaw’s Learn About the Law features thousands of informational articles to help you understand your options. And if you’re ready to hire an attorney, find one in your area who can help.
CARINO ITALIAN STYLE, S.R.L., et al., Plaintiffs-Appellants, v. Steven SHAMMAH, et al., Defendants-Respondents.
Order, Supreme Court, New York County (Beatrice Shainswit, J.), entered October 2, 1998, denying the motion to vacate the court's memorandum decision/order dated April 15, 1998, which had dismissed the complaint for neglect to prosecute, unanimously reversed, on the law, the facts, and in the exercise of discretion, with costs against each defendant, the motion granted, and the complaint reinstated.
There is no allegation by defendants-respondents, nor any finding by the trial court, that a written ninety day demand to file and serve a note of issue was served on plaintiffs-appellants as required by CPLR 3216(b). In Baczkowski v. Collins Construction Company, 89 N.Y.2d 499, 502-503, 655 N.Y.S.2d 848, 678 N.E.2d 460, the Court of Appeals underscored the limits upon a court's ability to dismiss an action for failure to prosecute: “CPLR 3216 is the general statutory authority for neglect-to-prosecute dismissals. The provision has a checkered history, which this Court has recounted on prior occasions (see, e.g. Chase v. Scavuzzo, 87 N.Y.2d 228, 231-233 [638 N.Y.S.2d 587, 661 N.E.2d 1368]; Cohn v. Borchard Affiliations, 25 N.Y.2d 237, 244-246 [303 N.Y.S.2d 633, 250 N.E.2d 690]; see also Siegel, Practice Commentaries, McKinney's Cons. Laws of N.Y., Book 7B, CPLR C3216:1-C3216:4, at 628-635). As a result of a 1967 amendment to CPLR 3216, courts are prohibited from dismissing an action for neglect to prosecute unless the statutory preconditions to dismissal are met (see, CPLR 3216[b]; Cohn v. Borchard Affiliations, supra, 25 N.Y.2d, at 246 [303 N.Y.S.2d 633, 250 N.E.2d 690] ).” See also, Matter of Holtzman v. Goldman, 71 N.Y.2d 564, 573, 528 N.Y.S.2d 21, 523 N.E.2d 297; Wisniewski v. Wisniewski, 149 A.D.2d 965, 540 N.Y.S.2d 101; Banca DiRoma v. Tripodi, 219 A.D.2d 536, 631 N.Y.S.2d 821; and, Ameropan Realty Corp. v. Rangeley Lakes Corp., 222 A.D.2d 631, 635 N.Y.S.2d 691.
This Court substitutes its own discretion in place of the Supreme Court's to reinstate the complaint of the Plaintiffs-Respondents.
MEMORANDUM DECISION.
Thank you for your feedback!
A free source of state and federal court opinions, state laws, and the United States Code. For more information about the legal concepts addressed by these cases and statutes visit FindLaw's Learn About the Law.
Decided: November 04, 1999
Court: Supreme Court, Appellate Division, First Department, New York.
Search our directory by legal issue
Enter information in one or both fields (Required)
Harness the power of our directory with your own profile. Select the button below to sign up.
Learn more about FindLaw’s newsletters, including our terms of use and privacy policy.
Get help with your legal needs
FindLaw’s Learn About the Law features thousands of informational articles to help you understand your options. And if you’re ready to hire an attorney, find one in your area who can help.
Search our directory by legal issue
Enter information in one or both fields (Required)