Key Takeaway
Court compares CPLR 3216 motion standards to summary judgment opposition burden, highlighting conflicting departmental approaches to meritorious cause requirements in NY litigation.
Lama v Mohammad, 2010 NY Slip Op 20410 (App. Term 2d Dept. 2010).
“The existence of a serious injury is a necessary element of plaintiff’s cause of action and, therefore, plaintiff erroneously contends that he did not need to provide any medical evidence to show the existence of such an injury. The affidavit submitted by plaintiff contains no evidentiary facts establishing that he has a viable cause of action and, clearly, it would have been insufficient to defeat a motion for summary judgment. Consequently, with respect to defendants Hollis and Mayo, since plaintiff failed to demonstrate both a meritorious cause of action and a justifiable excuse for the delay, so much of the order as granted said defendants’ motion to dismiss is left undisturbed.”
I have never seen the burden of defeating a 3216 motion compared to the burden necessary to successfully oppose a summary judgment motion. What is interesting is that the First Department just recently stated that 3216 is an extremely forgiving statute and allowed a verified complaint to satisfy the meritorious cause of action requirement.
Umeze v. Fidelis Care New York, 2010 N.Y. Slip Op. 0660 (1st Dept. 2010):
“CPLR 3216 “is extremely forgiving of litigation delay” (Baczkowski v Collins Constr. Co., 89 NY2d 499, 503 ), and “he nature and degree of the penalty to be imposed on a motion to dismiss for want of prosecution is a matter of discretion with the court” (Espinoza v 373-381 Park Ave. S., LLC, 68 AD3d 532, 533 ).”….“Contrary to defendants’ contention, the “complaint, verified by plaintiff on the basis of personal knowledge and which detailed acts of negligence, was a sufficient affidavit of merits”
Interesting, right?
Related Articles
- Combating litigation delay tactics in New York No-Fault Insurance cases
- Understanding the single motion rule and statute of limitations requirements
- How appellate courts handle summary judgment motions in no-fault cases
- Second and third chances to correct procedural mistakes in motion practice
- New York No-Fault Insurance Law
Legal Update (February 2026): The standards for demonstrating a meritorious cause of action under CPLR 3216 may have evolved since 2010, as courts have continued to refine the burden of proof required and the types of evidence deemed sufficient to defeat dismissal motions for want of prosecution. Practitioners should verify current case law regarding the comparative evidentiary standards between CPLR 3216 motions and summary judgment opposition, as well as any updates to the “extremely forgiving” doctrine referenced in departmental decisions.
