BOLAND v. BIORDI, N.Y. App. Div., Judgment, Law, casemine.com

Citation Codes

Equivalent Citations

citation codes

Attorney(S)

Ivone, Devine Jensen, Lake Success, N.Y. (Jonathan Rubin of counsel), for defendant third-party plaintiff-appellant. Abbate, Lawrence Worden, P. C., Melville, N.Y. (Roger B. Lawrence and Mary Beth Reilly of counsel), for third-party defendants-appellants. Oshman, Helfenstein, Bernstein, Mirisola Schwartz, LLP, New York, N Y (Ephrem Wertenteil of counsel), for respondents.

See more information ...

Smart Summary

Please sign up to generate summary.

ANDREW BOLAND, ETC., ET AL., RESPONDENTS, v. JOHN BIORDI, ETC., DEFENDANT THIRD-PARTY PLAINTIFF-APPELLANT; ROGER BAIM, ETC., ET AL., THIRD-PARTY DEFENDANTS-APPELLANTS.

DECISION ORDER

ORDERED that the orders are affirmed, with one bill of costs.

Under the circumstances, the order of the Supreme Court dated November 5, 1999, four months after issue was joined in the third-party action, and shortly after the third-party defendants served the plaintiffs with extensive disclosure demands, did not constitute a valid 90-day notice pursuant to CPLR 3216 (see, Schuering v. Stella, 243 A.D.2d 623; cf., Longacre Corp. v. Better Hosp. Equip. Corp., 228 A.D.2d 653). Furthermore, the order dated May 13, 2000, extending the plaintiffs' time to serve and file a note of issue was not based upon a valid 90-day notice. Therefore, the plaintiffs' failure to comply with that order did not require dismissal (see, Schuering v. Stella, supra).

BOLAND v. BIORDI

ANDREW BOLAND, ETC., ET AL., RESPONDENTS, v. JOHN BIORDI, ETC., DEFENDANT THIRD-PARTY PLAINTIFF-APPELLANT; ROGER BAIM, ETC., ET AL., THIRD-PARTY DEFENDANTS-APPELLANTS.

Comments