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.
JUDITH A. BERGES, PLAINTIFF–APPELLANT, v. PFIZER, INC., DEFENDANT–RESPONDENT.
MEMORANDUM AND ORDER
It is hereby ORDERED that the order so appealed from is unanimously affirmed without costs.
Memorandum: Plaintiff appeals from an order granting the motion of defendant to dismiss the action based on the failure of plaintiff to comply with defendant's demand for service of a complaint pursuant to CPLR 3012(b) and denying her amended cross motion to compel defendant to accept late service of her complaint. We affirm. “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” (Kordasiewicz v. BCC Prods., Inc., 26 AD3d 853, 854 [internal quotation marks omitted] ). Even assuming, arguendo, that plaintiff provided a reasonable excuse for her delay in serving the complaint, we conclude that Supreme Court properly determined that she failed to establish a meritorious cause of action (see generally Fasano v. J.C. Penney Corp., 59 AD3d 1102, 1102; Kordasiewicz, 26 AD3d at 855). A meritorious cause of action may be established by way of “an affidavit of merit containing evidentiary facts sufficient to establish a prima facie case” (Kel Mgt. Corp. v. Rogers & Wells, 64 N.Y.2d 904, 905; see Tonello v. Carborundum Co., 91 A.D.2d 1169, 1170, affd 59 N.Y.2d 720, rearg. denied 60 N.Y.2d 587). “It must be of a type which would defeat a motion for summary judgment on the ground that there is no issue of fact” (Tonello, 91 A.D.2d at 1170). Although plaintiff is correct that a verified pleading may be accepted in lieu of an affidavit of merit (see CPLR 105 [u]; A & J Concrete Corp. v. Arker, 54 N.Y.2d 870, 872; Kordasiewicz, 26 AD3d at 855), here the verified complaint sets forth conclusory assertions that are insufficient to establish a meritorious cause of action (see Wellington v. Weber, 193 A.D.2d 1111, 1112; see generally Weis v. Weis, 138 A.D.2d 968, 969). In addition, “ ‘the averments of a lay plaintiff cannot serve as the essential showing of the merit ․ where, as here, the averments include matters not within the ordinary experience and knowledge of laypersons' “ (Kordasiewicz, 26 AD3d at 855), and plaintiff improperly submitted a physician's affidavit of merit for the first time in reply (see Siculan v. Koukos, 74 AD3d 946, 947). In any event, the physician's affidavit was devoid of any evidentiary facts or detail regarding plaintiff's causes of action.
Frances E. Cafarell
Clerk of the Court
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.
Docket No: CA 12–01977
Decided: July 05, 2013
Court: Supreme Court, Appellate Division, Fourth 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)