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.
Christine CASTIGLIONE, Plaintiff-Respondent, v. Jan PISANCZYN, Defendant-Appellant.
MEMORANDUM AND ORDER
It is hereby ORDERED that the order so appealed from is unanimously affirmed without costs.
Memorandum: Plaintiff commenced this negligence action seeking damages for injuries that she allegedly sustained as a result of a motor vehicle accident. Defendant appeals from an order denying her motion to dismiss the complaint pursuant to CPLR 3216 for failure to prosecute. We conclude under the circumstances of this case that Supreme Court did not abuse its discretion in denying defendant's motion. Even assuming, arguendo, that plaintiff failed to establish a justifiable excuse for any delay and a meritorious cause of action upon failing to comply with defendant's 90-day demand (see CPLR 3216 [e]), we note that, contrary to defendant's contention, “[a] court retains discretion to deny a motion to dismiss pursuant to CPLR 3216 even [under those circumstances]” (Rust v. Turgeon, 295 A.D.2d 962, 963, 746 N.Y.S.2d 223 [4th Dept. 2002]; see Hawe v. Delmar, 148 A.D.3d 1788, 1789, 50 N.Y.S.3d 777 [4th Dept. 2017]; Amanda C.S. v. Stearns [appeal No. 1], 49 A.D.3d 1227, 1228, 853 N.Y.S.2d 771 [4th Dept. 2008]; Restaino v. Capicotto, 26 A.D.3d 771, 771, 808 N.Y.S.2d 879 [4th Dept. 2006]; see generally Baczkowski v. Collins Constr. Co., 89 N.Y.2d 499, 503-505, 655 N.Y.S.2d 848, 678 N.E.2d 460 [1997]). Here, plaintiff's efforts to move the case forward during the 90-day period, which included reaching a stipulation with defendant to bifurcate the trial, “ ‘negated any inference that [plaintiff] intended to abandon [the] action’ ” (Restaino, 26 A.D.3d at 772, 808 N.Y.S.2d 879; see Hawe, 148 A.D.3d at 1789, 50 N.Y.S.3d 777). Finally, we further note that “[t]here is no parallel between the circumstances of the instant case and those where CPLR 3216 dismissals have been justified based on patterns of persistent neglect, a history of extensive delay, evidence of an intent to abandon prosecution, and lack of any tenable excuse for such delay” (Amanda C.S., 49 A.D.3d at 1228, 853 N.Y.S.2d 771 [internal quotation marks omitted]; see Hawe, 148 A.D.3d at 1789, 50 N.Y.S.3d 777).
Thank you for your feedback!
As the largest network of trusted legal brands, we help firms build authority across the platforms consumers and AI systems rely on most. Our network helps attorneys strengthen visibility, credibility, and preference where legal decisions begin.
Docket No: 189
Decided: June 09, 2023
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)