section 3012(b) dismiss the action in New York

1981It stated (p 599): “Although the lower courts enjoy considerable latitude in determining whether to dismiss an action pursuant to CPLR 3012 (subd [b]) (see Sortino v Fisher, 20 AD2d 25,27-28 ), the cases suggest that their decisions must be based upon a genuine consideration of several specific factors.” The court then set forth what a plaintiff is required to demonstrate in order to avoid dismissal for failure to serve a timely complaint, viz., a reasonable excuse for the delay in pleading, and evidence of a meritorious claim.

1980Although the lower courts enjoy considerable latitude in determining whether to dismiss an action pursuant to CPLR 3012 (subd [b]) (see Sortino v Fisher, 20 AD2d 25, 27-28 ), the cases suggest that their decisions must be based upon a genuine consideration of several specific factors.

2020In Moray , this Court affirmed the Supreme Court's order granting the defendant's motion pursuant to CPLR 3012(b) to dismiss the action for failure to timely serve a complaint, holding, inter alia, that the plaintiff's contention that the action had been stayed pursuant to CPLR 321(c) was raised for the first time on appeal and, thus, was not properly before us ( see Moray v Koven & Krause, Esqs. , 62 AD3d 765 , revd 15 NY3d 384 ).

2010To avoid dismissal of the action for failure to serve a timely complaint after a demand therefor has been served pursuant to CPLR 3012 (b), a plaintiff must demonstrate both a reasonable excuse for the delay in serving the complaint and the existence of a potentially meritorious cause of action (see Moray v Koven & Krause, Esqs., 62 AD3d 765 [2009]; Leibowitz v Glickman, 50 AD3d 643 [2008]; Balgley v Cammarata, 299 AD2d 432 [2002]).

2013“In order to avoid dismissal 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” (Perez-Faringer v Heilman, 79 AD3d 837, 838 [2010]; Gibbons v Court Officers’ Benevolent Assn. of Nassau County, 78 AD3d 654 [2010]).

2013“In order to avoid dismissal 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” (Perez-Faringer v Heilman, 79 AD3d 837, 838 [2010]; Gibbons v Court Officers’ Benevolent Assn. of Nassau County, 78 AD3d 654 [2010]).

2004Corp. v Rogers & Wells , 64 NY2d 904 [1985].) On the record presented here, this court finds that plaintiffs failed in all respects to meet their burden. ( Cf .

1988Corp. v Rogers & Wells, 64 NY2d 904 ; Canter v Mulnick, 60 NY2d 689 ).

2004(See Schwartz v Luks, 46 AD2d 634 [1st Dept 1974]; Wright v Farlin, 42 AD2d 141 [3d Dept 1973].) Although the trial courts enjoy considerable latitude in determining whether to dismiss an action pursuant to CPLR 3012 (b) (see Barasch v Micucci, 49 NY2d 594 [1980]), the courts are bound to unconditionally dismiss an action if a plaintiff fails to demonstrate a reasonable excuse for her delay and establish a meritorious nature of her claim.

2004Not only has the statute of limitations expired in the case, but plaintiffs would not get the six-month extension offered by CPLR 205-b (provided when a dismissal is not on the merits); a dismissal pursuant CPLR 3102 (b) is outside the ambit of CPLR 205-b, as constituting a dismissal for failure to prosecute. ( See Schwartz v Luks , 46 AD2d 634 [1st Dept 1974]; Wright v Farlin , 42 AD2d 141 [3d Dept 1973].) Although the trial courts enjoy considerable latitude in determining whether to dismiss an action pursuant to CPLR 3012 (b) ( see Barasch v Micucci , 49 NY2d 594 [1980]), the courts are bou

2004(See Schwartz v Luks, 46 AD2d 634 [1st Dept 1974]; Wright v Farlin, 42 AD2d 141 [3d Dept 1973].) Although the trial courts enjoy considerable latitude in determining whether to dismiss an action pursuant to CPLR 3012 (b) (see Barasch v Micucci, 49 NY2d 594 [1980]), the courts are bound to unconditionally dismiss an action if a plaintiff fails to demonstrate a reasonable excuse for her delay and establish a meritorious nature of her claim.

2004Not only has the statute of limitations expired in the case, but plaintiffs would not get the six-month extension offered by CPLR 205-b (provided when a dismissal is not on the merits); a dismissal pursuant CPLR 3102 (b) is outside the ambit of CPLR 205-b, as constituting a dismissal for failure to prosecute. ( See Schwartz v Luks , 46 AD2d 634 [1st Dept 1974]; Wright v Farlin , 42 AD2d 141 [3d Dept 1973].) Although the trial courts enjoy considerable latitude in determining whether to dismiss an action pursuant to CPLR 3012 (b) ( see Barasch v Micucci , 49 NY2d 594 [1980]), the courts are bou

2003The plaintiffs failed to demonstrate a reasonable excuse for the delay, and the affidavit of merit did not establish a meritorious cause of action (see CPLR 3012 [d]; Snyder v Blinder, 230 AD2d 728 [1996]; Gibson v Victory Mem.

2000The plaintiff failed to submit an affidavit of merit by an expert (see, Culley v Morrison, 247 AD2d 356 ; Snyder v Blinder, 230 AD2d 728 ; Gibson v Victory Mem.

2003In opposing the motion, the plaintiff failed to demonstrate a reasonable excuse for the delay in serving the complaint and a meritorious cause of action (see CPLR 3012 [b]; Meiselman v Central Suffolk Hosp., 273 AD2d 209 [2000]; Chmielnik v Rosenberg, 269 AD2d 555 [2000]; Quinn v Wenco Food Sys.

2002To successfully oppose a motion pursuant to CPLR 3012 (b) to dismiss an action for failure to serve a complaint, a plaintiff must demonstrate, among other things, a reasonable excuse for failing to serve a timely complaint (see, Chmielnik v Rosenberg, 269 AD2d 555 ; Bravo v New York City Hous.

2000Given the short delay and the lack of any prejudice, the Supreme Court providently exercised its discretion in denying the appellants’ motion to dismiss the action pursuant to CPLR 3012 (b) based upon the plaintiffs’ failure to timely serve a. complaint after a demand therefor was made (see, Kramer v Rosenthal, 204 AD2d 406 ; Reuter v Schroeder, 195 AD2d 543 ; Gordineer v Gallagher, 160 AD2d 672 ; Rait v Bauer, 121 AD2d 704 ).

1994Given the short delay and the lack of any prejudice, the court did not improvidently exercise its discretion in denying the appellant’s motion to dismiss the action pursuant to CPLR 3012 (b) for the plaintiff’s failure to timely serve a complaint after a demand (see, Reuter v Schroeder, 195 AD2d 543 ; Shopsin v Siben & Siben, 189 AD2d 811 ).

1981(See Barasch v Micucci, 49 NY2d 594 ; Verre v Rosas, 47 NY2d 795 ; Williams v Howard, 75 AD2d 894 .) Hopkins, J.P., Rabin, Cohalan and O’Connor, JJ., concur.

1980In view of plaintiff’s delay of 20 months in complying with defendant Isidore’s demand for service of a complaint, coupled with her further delay of approximately 28 months in applying to be relieved of her default after receipt of notice of rejection for untimely service and the inadequacy of the excuse offered, it was an abuse of discretion to deny Isidore’s motion to dismiss the action pursuant to CPLR 3012 (subd [b]), to grant plaintiff’s cross motion and to require Isidore to accept service of the complaint and to serve an answer thereto (see Verre v Rosas, 47 NY2d 795 ; Barasch v Micucci

1980In view of plaintiff’s delay of 20 months in complying with defendant Isidore’s demand for service of a complaint, coupled with her further delay of approximately 28 months in applying to be relieved of her default after receipt of notice of rejection for untimely service and the inadequacy of the excuse offered, it was an abuse of discretion to deny Isidore’s motion to dismiss the action pursuant to CPLR 3012 (subd [b]), to grant plaintiff’s cross motion and to require Isidore to accept service of the complaint and to serve an answer thereto (see Verre v Rosas, 47 NY2d 795 ; Barasch v Micucci

1979Accordingly, the denial of appellants’ motion to dismiss the action pursuant to CPLR 3012 (subd [b]) constituted an abuse of discretion (see Berland v Fine, 63 AD2d 642 , in which the plaintiff was represented by the same attorney as represents the plaintiff herein).

2025While settlement negotiations in certain instances may constitute a reasonable excuse for a default, here, contrary to the plaintiffs' contention, the plaintiffs failed to demonstrate that the parties were actively engaged in settlement negotiations so as to excuse the delay in serving the complaint more than one year past the deadline set forth in the June 2019 stipulation ( see Timmerman v Gentile , 224 AD3d 862 , 863; Luksic v Killmer , 100 AD2d 864, 864 ).

2025While settlement negotiations in certain instances may constitute a reasonable excuse for a default, here, contrary to the plaintiffs' contention, the plaintiffs failed to demonstrate that the parties were actively engaged in settlement negotiations so as to excuse the delay in serving the complaint more than one year past the deadline set forth in the June 2019 stipulation ( see Timmerman v Gentile , 224 AD3d 862 , 863; Luksic v Killmer , 100 AD2d 864, 864 ).

2025Group, Inc. v McGowan Bldrs., Inc. , 178 AD3d 772 , 773; cf. Fein v Fein , 192 AD3d 1083, 1085 ).

2023The plaintiffs presented new facts regarding their excuse for the delay in serving the complaint that would change the prior determination, and the excuse of law office failure was a reasonable justification under the circumstances ( see CPLR 2221[e][2]; Castor v Cuevas , 137 AD3d 734 ).

2020Inc. v Board of Educ. , 60 NY2d 539, 544-545 ).

2020In Moray , this Court affirmed the Supreme Court's order granting the defendant's motion pursuant to CPLR 3012(b) to dismiss the action for failure to timely serve a complaint, holding, inter alia, that the plaintiff's contention that the action had been stayed pursuant to CPLR 321(c) was raised for the first time on appeal and, thus, was not properly before us ( see Moray v Koven & Krause, Esqs. , 62 AD3d 765 , revd 15 NY3d 384 ).

2019The motion court exercised its discretion in a provident manner in denying the motion to dismiss ( see Hernandez v Chaparro , 95 AD3d 745 [1st Dept 2012]).

2015CPLR 3012 (b) provides that if the complaint is not served with the summons, service of the complaint shall be made within 20 days after service of a demand for a complaint. “[I]n order to avoid dismissal for failure to timely serve a complaint, the plaintiff must demonstrate a reasonable excuse for the delay” (Barasch v Micucci, 49 NY2d 594, 599 [1980], revd on other grounds 49 NY2d 594 [1980]; see Harris v City of New York, 121 AD3d 852, 855 [2014]; Carducci v Russell, 120 AD3d 1375 [2014]).

2015Accordingly, the Supreme Court providently exercised its discretion in granting the defendant’s motion pursuant to CPLR 3012 (b) to dismiss the action (see Dayan v Darche, 96 AD3d at 708 ; Eglit v County of Westchester, 46 AD3d 504, 505 [2007]).

2015The Supreme Court providently exercised its discretion in granting that branch of the plaintiff’s motion which was to compel acceptance of the complaint and denying the defendant’s motion to dismiss the action pursuant to CPLR 3012 (b) (see Yong II Pak v Kwah, 236 AD2d 608 [1997]).

2015The Supreme Court providently exercised its discretion in granting that branch of the plaintiff’s motion which was to compel acceptance of the complaint and denying the defendant’s motion to dismiss the action pursuant to CPLR 3012 (b) (see Yong II Pak v Kwah, 236 AD2d 608 [1997]).

2011Ordered that the appeal from so much of the order entered November 18, 2009, as denied that branch of the plaintiffs motion which was for leave to reargue is dismissed, as no appeal lies from an order denying leave to reargue (see Campoverde v Bruckner Plaza Assoc., L.P., 50 AD3d 836 [2008]); and it is further, Ordered that the order entered September 22, 2009, is affirmed; and it is further, Ordered that the order entered November 18, 2009, is affirmed insofar as reviewed; and it is further, Ordered that one bill of costs is awarded to the defendants. “[T]o avoid dismissal for failure to time

2010Francis Hosp., 10 AD3d 678 [2004]; Klosterman v Federal Express Co., 271 AD2d 492 [2000]).

2010Francis Hosp., 10 AD3d 678 [2004]; Klosterman v Federal Express Co., 271 AD2d 492 [2000]).