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.
EVA E. DUNLOP, PLAINTIFF–RESPONDENT, v. SAINT LEO THE GREAT R.C. CHURCH, DEFENDANT–APPELLANT, ET AL., DEFENDANT.
MEMORANDUM AND ORDER
It is hereby ORDERED that the order insofar as appealed from is unanimously reversed on the law without costs, the motion is granted and the action against defendant Saint Leo the Great R.C. Church is dismissed.
Memorandum: Plaintiff commenced this personal injury action by filing a summons with notice on the last day of the relevant statute of limitations. In response, Saint Leo the Great R.C. Church (defendant) mailed to plaintiff's counsel a notice of appearance and demand for the complaint pursuant to CPLR 3012(b). When plaintiff failed to comply with defendant's demand for the complaint, defendant moved to dismiss the action. Supreme Court denied the motion, and defendant appeals.
We conclude that the court erred in denying the motion. “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] ). Here, plaintiff failed to meet her burden with respect to either prong of that test. Concerning the first part of the test, plaintiff asserted that she delayed in filing the complaint because she did not receive defendant's demand for the complaint. In our view, that excuse is not reasonable (see Imperiale v. Prezioso, 4 Misc.3d 716, 719–720). Service of the demand for the complaint was complete upon mailing (see CPLR 2103[b][2] ), and defendant's submission in support of its motion of a proper affidavit of service of the demand entitled it to the presumption that a proper mailing occurred (see Kihl v. Pfeffer, 94 N.Y.2d 118, 122). We agree with defendant that plaintiff's mere denial of receipt of the demand was insufficient to rebut that presumption (see id.; Engel v. Lichterman, 62 N.Y.2d 943, 944–945; cf. Vita v. Heller, 97 A.D.2d 464, 464–465). Even assuming, arguendo, that nonreceipt of the demand was a reasonable excuse, we conclude that plaintiff failed to establish a meritorious cause of action with a verified complaint or an affidavit of merit, and thus dismissal of the action is required (see CPLR 3012[b]; Kel Mgt. Corp. v. Rogers & Wells, 64 N.Y.2d 904, 905).
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 13–00129
Decided: September 27, 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)