Legal Opinion
Rowley v. Carl Zeiss, Inc.
Appellate Division of the Supreme Court of the State of New York
Decided March 29, 2000PublishedCited by 3 opinions
1Opinion of the Court
—Order unanimously reversed on the law without costs, motion granted and complaint dismissed. Memorandum: Supreme Court erred in denying defendant’s motion to dismiss the complaint pursuant to CPLR 3216 based upon plaintiffs’ failure to comply with defendant’s 90-day demand to file a note of issue. Plaintiffs failed to file a note of issue or to move to vacate the demand or extend the time within which to file and thus, in order to avoid dismissal, plaintiffs were required to demonstrate a justifiable excuse for the delay and a meritorious cause of action (see, Geise v Wetherill, 238 AD2d…
2Cases cited6 opinions
- Baczkowski v. D.A. Collins Construction Co.New York Court of Appeals · 1997
- Hogan v. City of KingstonAppellate Division of the Supreme Court of the State of New York · 1997
- Schoenhals v. Kissing Bridge Corp.Appellate Division of the Supreme Court of the State of New York · 1983
- Geise v. WetherillAppellate Division of the Supreme Court of the State of New York · 1997
- Tu Ying Chen v. NashAppellate Division of the Supreme Court of the State of New York · 1999
1 more not listed; retrieve them via the Exa API.
3Cited by3 opinions
- Wasielewski v. Town of CheektowagaAppellate Division of the Supreme Court of the State of New York · 2001
- Burridge v. GainesAppellate Division of the Supreme Court of the State of New York · 2001
- Goldberg v. TunstallAppellate Division of the Supreme Court of the State of New York · 2002