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.
Jude Mezar, et al., appellants, v. Louis Defranco, etc., et al., respondents.
Argued—March 16, 2020
DECISION & ORDER
In an action, inter alia, to recover damages for false arrest and malicious prosecution, the plaintiffs appeal from an order of the Supreme Court, Kings County (Katherine A. Levine, J.), dated March 1, 2019. The order, insofar as appealed from, granted the defendants' motion pursuant to CPLR 3012(b) to dismiss the action.
ORDERED that the order is affirmed insofar as appealed from, with costs.
“To avoid dismissal of [an] action for failure to 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 potentially meritorious cause of action” (Carducci v. Russell, 120 AD3d 1375, 1375–1376; see Telian v. Freund, 129 AD3d 828). “The determination of what constitutes a reasonable excuse is within the sound discretion of the court” (Mazzola v. Village Hous. Assoc., LLC, 164 AD3d 668, 669).
Contrary to the plaintiffs' contention, the defendants' CPLR 3012(b) demand for the complaint was properly served via first class mail (see John Harris, P.C. v. FSA Main St. LLC., 113 AD3d 415, 416; Tsionis v. Eriora Corp., 123 AD3d 694, 696). Moreover, the plaintiffs' mere denial of receipt of the demand for the complaint was insufficient to demonstrate a reasonable excuse for their delay in serving the complaint (see CPLR 2103[b][2]; Kihl v. Pfeffer, 94 N.Y.2d 118, 122; C & H Import & Export, Inc. v. MNA Global, Inc., 79 AD3d 784, 786). In view of the foregoing, we need not consider whether the plaintiffs demonstrated a potentially meritorious cause of action.
The plaintiffs' remaining contentions are without merit.
Accordingly, the Supreme Court providently exercised its discretion in granting the defendants' motion pursuant to CPLR 3012(b) to dismiss the action.
DILLON, J.P., LASALLE, BARROS and CHRISTOPHER, JJ., concur.
ENTER:
Aprilanne Agostino
Clerk of the Court
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.
Docket No: 2019–04684 (Index No. 515352 /16)
Decided: January 20, 2021
Court: Supreme Court, Appellate Division, Second 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)