meritorious nature claim in New York

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 .

1992Corp. v Rogers & Wells, 64 NY2d 904 ; Ferrara v Guardino, 164 AD2d 932 ; DeSiena v Maimonides Hosp.

1983Plaintiff has failed to establish the legal merits of this action by an affidavit from a physician competent to attest to the meritorious nature of his claim (see Amodeo v Radler, 89 AD2d 594 , affd 59 NY2d 1001 ; Smith v Lefrak Organization, 60 NY2d 828 ; Lee v Moley, 97 AD2d 787 ).

1983In seeking to excuse the failure to serve a medical malpractice bill of particulars in a timely fashion, a plaintiff must establish the legal merits of his case by an affidavit from a physician competent to attest to the meritorious nature of his claim (Amodeo v Radler, 89 AD2d 594 ).

1984In light of plaintiff’s failure to submit an affidavit from a physician competent to attest to the meritorious nature of the claim, Special Term properly directed unconditional dismissal of the complaint (Salch v Paratore, 60 NY2d 851; Canter v Mulnick, 60 NY2d 689 ; Stolowitz v Mount Sinai Hosp., 60 NY2d 685 ; Amodeo v Radler, 59 NY2d 1001 ; La Bouda v Brookdale Mem.

1983Plaintiff has failed to establish the legal merits of this action by an affidavit from a physician competent to attest to the meritorious nature of his claim (see Amodeo v Radler, 89 AD2d 594 , affd 59 NY2d 1001 ; Smith v Lefrak Organization, 60 NY2d 828 ; Lee v Moley, 97 AD2d 787 ).

1986Plaintiffs’ failure to submit an affidavit of merit by a medical expert competent to attest to the meritorious nature of their claim requires unconditional dismissal of the complaint (see, Salch v Paratore, 60 NY2d 851; Canter v Mulnick, 60 NY2d 689 ; Stolowitz v Mount Sinai Hosp., 60 NY2d 685 ; Vernon v Nassau County Med.

1984In light of plaintiff’s failure to submit an affidavit from a physician competent to attest to the meritorious nature of the claim, Special Term properly directed unconditional dismissal of the complaint (Salch v Paratore, 60 NY2d 851; Canter v Mulnick, 60 NY2d 689 ; Stolowitz v Mount Sinai Hosp., 60 NY2d 685 ; Amodeo v Radler, 59 NY2d 1001 ; La Bouda v Brookdale Mem.

1991Center, 102 AD2d 852 ; Fileccia v Massapequa Gen.

1988Center, 102 AD2d 852 ).

1988In interpreting the pertinent provisions of CPLR 3012, it has been held that to avoid a dismissal for the failure to comply with that statute, in addition to compliance with the statutory requirement of a reasonable excuse for his default (see, e.g., Kaveny v Fine, 122 AD2d 304, 305 ; De Vito v Marine Midland Bank, 100 AD2d 530, 531 ), the plaintiff must submit evidentiary proof as to the meritorious nature of the claim which, in the usual medical malpractice action, includes an affidavit of merit from an appropriate medical expert (see, e.g., Stolowitz v Mount Sinai Hosp., 60 NY2d 685, 686 ;

1986Plaintiffs’ failure to submit an affidavit of merit by a medical expert competent to attest to the meritorious nature of their claim requires unconditional dismissal of the complaint (see, Salch v Paratore, 60 NY2d 851; Canter v Mulnick, 60 NY2d 689 ; Stolowitz v Mount Sinai Hosp., 60 NY2d 685 ; Vernon v Nassau County Med.

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

1998Co., 188 AD2d 575 ; I.J.

1997Co., 188 AD2d 575 ; I.J.

1991Under the circumstances, the plaintiff’s failure to submit her own affidavit and an affidavit of merit by a medical expert competent to attest to the meritorious nature of her claim mandates dismissal of the complaint (see, Fiore v Galang, supra; Salch v Paratore, 60 NY2d 851 ; Reed v Friedman, 117 AD2d 661 ; Vernon v Nassau County Med.

1986Plaintiffs’ failure to submit an affidavit of merit by a medical expert competent to attest to the meritorious nature of their claim requires unconditional dismissal of the complaint (see, Salch v Paratore, 60 NY2d 851; Canter v Mulnick, 60 NY2d 689 ; Stolowitz v Mount Sinai Hosp., 60 NY2d 685 ; Vernon v Nassau County Med.

1984H With respect to the issue of merit, it was incumbent for the plaintiff herein who is alleging a cause of action based on dental malpractice, to submit an affidavit containing evidentiary facts by a person competent to attest to the meritorious nature of her claim, i.e., a dental expert (see Hatcher v City of New York, 99 AD2d 481 ; Berman v Brunswick Hosp.

1984In this regard it was incumbent upon the plaintiff herein, who is alleging a cause of action based on medical malpractice, to submit an affidavit containing evidentiary facts by a person competent to attest to the meritorious nature of his claim, i.e., a physician (Sortino v Fisher, supra; Hatcher v City of New York, 99 AD2d 481 ; Berman v Brunswick Hosp.

2024Co. , 112 AD2d 410 )." ( Segall v Heyer , 161 AD2d at 473 .) Case law on the topic of granting renewal with respect to a summary judgment motion so that a video not previously submitted may now be considered appears to go both ways.

1990Co., 112 AD2d 410 ).

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

2002Considering the absence of prejudice to the plaintiff, the meritorious nature of the defense, and the public policy in favor of resolving cases on the merits, we agree that the delay in serving the answer should be excused (see Calcagno v Magistrelli, 284 AD2d 289 ; Kaiser v Delaney, 255 AD2d 362 ; Van Man Adhesives Corp. v City of New York, 236 AD2d 465 ).

1998Considering the absence of prejudice to the plaintiffs, the meritorious nature of the defense, and the public policy in favor of resolving cases on the merits, we agree that the 2V2-month delay in serving the answer should be excused (see, CPLR 2005; Van Man Adhesives Corp. v City of New York, 236 AD2d 465 ; Albin v First Nationwide Network Mtge.

2002Considering the absence of prejudice to the plaintiff, the meritorious nature of the defense, and the public policy in favor of resolving cases on the merits, we agree that the delay in serving the answer should be excused (see Calcagno v Magistrelli, 284 AD2d 289 ; Kaiser v Delaney, 255 AD2d 362 ; Van Man Adhesives Corp. v City of New York, 236 AD2d 465 ).

2001Considering the absence of prejudice to the plaintiff, the meritorious nature of the defense, and the public policy in favor of resolving cases on the merits, the delay in serving the answer should have been excused (see, Kaiser v Delaney, 255 AD2d 362 ).

1993Handa, P. C. v Imperato, 159 AD2d 484 ).

1992Handa, P. C. v Imperato, 159 AD2d 484 ).

1993On this record, we find that plaintiff has failed in all respects to meet his burden (see, Ferrara v Guardino, 164 AD2d 932, 933 ).

1992Corp. v Rogers & Wells, 64 NY2d 904 ; Ferrara v Guardino, 164 AD2d 932 ; DeSiena v Maimonides Hosp.

1991Under the circumstances, the plaintiff’s failure to submit her own affidavit and an affidavit of merit by a medical expert competent to attest to the meritorious nature of her claim mandates dismissal of the complaint (see, Fiore v Galang, supra; Salch v Paratore, 60 NY2d 851 ; Reed v Friedman, 117 AD2d 661 ; Vernon v Nassau County Med.

1988The plaintiff’s failure to submit an affidavit of merit by a medical expert competent to attest to the meritorious nature of her claim to recover damages for medical malpractice requires the dismissal of the action as against the defendant hospital (see, Reed v Friedman, 117 AD2d 661 ; Vernon v Nassau County Med.

1988Further, an appropriate monetary sanction can be imposed for a CPLR 3012 pleading default (see, e.g., Stark v Marine Power & Light Co., 99 AD2d 753 ; Andersen v De Ramon, 99 AD2d 500 ; see also, Passas v Razis & Ross, 111 AD2d 377 ).

1987Center, 102 AD2d 842 , appeal dismissed 63 NY2d 770 ; Stark v Marine Power & Light Co., 99 AD2d 753 ; Lindo v Evans, 98 AD2d 765 ).

1988In interpreting the pertinent provisions of CPLR 3012, it has been held that to avoid a dismissal for the failure to comply with that statute, in addition to compliance with the statutory requirement of a reasonable excuse for his default (see, e.g., Kaveny v Fine, 122 AD2d 304, 305 ; De Vito v Marine Midland Bank, 100 AD2d 530, 531 ), the plaintiff must submit evidentiary proof as to the meritorious nature of the claim which, in the usual medical malpractice action, includes an affidavit of merit from an appropriate medical expert (see, e.g., Stolowitz v Mount Sinai Hosp., 60 NY2d 685, 686 ;

1987It is well settled that, for a plaintiff to avoid dismissal for failure to timely serve a complaint, a reasonable excuse for the delay and the meritorious nature of the claim must be demonstrated (see, De Vito v Marine Midland Bank, 100 AD2d 530 ).

1987In a medical malpractice action, expert medical opinion evidence is required to demonstrate merit (see, Fiore v Galang, 105 AD2d 970 , affd 64 NY2d 999 ; Amodeo v Radler, 89 AD2d 594 , affd 59 NY2d 1001 ; Saeed v Boulevard Hosp., 109 AD2d 831 ).

1987In a medical malpractice action, expert medical opinion evidence is required to demonstrate merit (see, Fiore v Galang, 105 AD2d 970 , affd 64 NY2d 999 ; Amodeo v Radler, 89 AD2d 594 , affd 59 NY2d 1001 ; Saeed v Boulevard Hosp., 109 AD2d 831 ).

1984Center, 94 AD2d 736 ; Ferrigno v St.

1984Center, 94 AD2d 736 ; Ferrigno v St.

1984In the context of a medical malpractice action such as the instant matter, the affidavit must be from a physician able to attest to the merits of the claim (Smith v Lefrak Organization, 60 NY2d 828, 830 ).

1983Plaintiff has failed to establish the legal merits of this action by an affidavit from a physician competent to attest to the meritorious nature of his claim (see Amodeo v Radler, 89 AD2d 594 , affd 59 NY2d 1001 ; Smith v Lefrak Organization, 60 NY2d 828 ; Lee v Moley, 97 AD2d 787 ).