WILLIAMS v. BIGGS (2026)

DECISION & ORDER

In an action, inter alia, to recover damages for fraud and violation of Judiciary Law § 487, the plaintiff appeals from an order of the Supreme Court, Kings County (Francois A. Rivera, J.), dated December 16, 2021.  The order, insofar as appealed from, denied that branch of the plaintiff's motion which was for leave to enter a default judgment against the defendants Carina Biggs, Law Offices of Goldfarb & Gerzog, Rhonda L. Rosen, and Dawn Maynard.

ORDERED that the order is affirmed insofar as appealed from, with costs.

The plaintiff commenced this action against, among others, the defendants Law Offices of Goldfarb and Gerzog (hereinafter G & G), a law firm that represented him in an underlying medical malpractice action, entitled Williams v New York City Health & Hospitals Corporation, pending in the Supreme Court, Kings County, under Index No. 500113/15, Rhonda L. Rosen, counsel to New York City Health & Hospitals Corporation (hereinafter NYCHHC) in the underlying medical malpractice action, Carina Biggs, who provided the subject medical treatment in the underlying medical malpractice action, and Dawn Maynard, who certified medical records in connection with the underlying medical malpractice action.  The complaint, which as filed on or about March 20, 2020, alleged that the medical provider defendants in the underlying medical malpractice action, the medical provider defendants' attorneys, and the plaintiff's attorneys conspired to forge medical records to minimize the medical provider defendants' liability and to induce the plaintiff to accept a settlement (see Williams v. Biggs, ––– AD3d –––– [Appellate Division Docket Nos.2021–03673, 2021–08825, 2021–08826;  decided herewith] ).

On or about November 3, 2020, Maynard, Biggs, and Rosen moved to dismiss the complaint insofar as asserted against them, inter alia, pursuant to CPLR 3211(a).  On or about November 23, 2020, G & G moved for an extension of time to answer the complaint.  On December 22, 2020, the Supreme Court granted G & G's motion and extended its time to answer to February 2, 2021.  G & G moved pursuant to CPLR 3211(a) to dismiss the complaint insofar as asserted against it on February 2, 2021.

While the motions were pending, on or about July 14, 2021, the plaintiff moved, among other things, pursuant to CPLR 3215 for leave to enter a default judgment against G & G, Biggs, Rosen, and Maynard (hereinafter collectively the defendants).  In an order dated December 16, 2021, the Supreme Court denied that branch of the motion.  The plaintiff appeals.

The Supreme Court properly denied that branch of the plaintiff's motion which was for leave to enter a default judgment against the defendants, as the defendants did not default in answering the complaint (see JBBNY, LLC v. Dedvukaj, 171 AD3d 898, 900;  Raghavendra v. Stober, 171 AD3d 814, 817).  Contrary to the plaintiff's contention, Administrative Order of the Chief Administrative Judge of the Courts AO/115/20 (see AO–115–20, available at https://www.nycourts.gov/whatsnew/pdf/AO–115–20.pdf), issued on May 28, 2020, did not lift the toll that was put into effect by Executive Order (A.Cuomo) No. 202.8 (9 NYCRR 8.202.8) and extended through a series of nine subsequent executive orders through November 3, 2020 (see McLaughlin v. Snowlift, Inc., 214 AD3d 720, 721;  Brash v. Richards, 195 AD3d 582, 583).

This Court declines to sanction the plaintiff for filing a frivolous appeal.  Although “a party's pro se status should not render the party immune,” in this instance the Court is mindful to afford leniency to the pro se plaintiff (see NewRez LLC v. Morton, 242 AD3d 416, 417).

The plaintiff's remaining contentions are without merit.

CONNOLLY, J.P., FORD, VOUTSINAS and LOVE, JJ., concur.