Ordered that the order is modified by deleting the provision thereof denying the defendant's motion to dismiss the complaint, and substituting therefor a provision granting the defendant's motion; as so modified, the order is affirmed insofar as appealed and cross-appealed from, with costs payable to the defendant.
Contrary to the plaintiff's contention, the defendant's appearance in this action by service of a notice of appearance on October 21, 1996, was equivalent to personal service of the summons upon him ( see, CPLR 320 [b]; 3211 [e]). Thus, the plaintiff was required to serve the complaint within 20 days after the defendant served a written demand for the complaint on October 21, 1996 ( see, CPLR 3012 [b]).
In opposing the defendant's motion to dismiss the complaint for failure to serve a timely complaint pursuant to CPLR 3012 (b), the plaintiff was required to demonstrate a meritorious cause of action and a reasonable excuse for the delay ( see, Chiaffarano v. Winston, 234 A.D.2d 329). The plaintiff failed to submit an affidavit of merit by an expert ( see, Perez v. Long Is. Jewish Hillside Med. Ctr., 173 A.D.2d 530; Brice v. Westchester Community Health Plan, 143 A.D.2d 170) or to proffer any excuse for the delay. Therefore, the defendants motion to dismiss the complaint should have been granted.
Mangano, P.J., Copertino, Joy, Florio and Luciano, JJ., concur.
Comments