Key Takeaway
Court compares CPLR 3216 motion standards to summary judgment opposition burden, highlighting conflicting departmental approaches to meritorious cause requirements in NY litigation.
This article is part of our ongoing procedural issues coverage, with 187 published articles analyzing procedural issues issues across New York State. Attorney Jason Tenenbaum brings 24+ years of hands-on experience to this analysis, drawing from his work on more than 1,000 appeals, over 100,000 no-fault cases, and recovery of over $100 million for clients throughout Nassau County, Suffolk County, Queens, Brooklyn, Manhattan, and the Bronx. For personalized legal advice about how these principles apply to your specific situation, contact our Long Island office at (516) 750-0595 for a free consultation.
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):
Free Consultation · No Fee Unless We Win
Does this apply to your situation?
Every case is different. Get a free, confidential case review from an experienced attorney who can tell you exactly where you stand.
“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.
Legal Context
Why This Matters for Your Case
New York law is among the most complex and nuanced in the country, with distinct procedural rules, substantive doctrines, and court systems that differ significantly from other jurisdictions. The Civil Practice Law and Rules (CPLR) governs every stage of civil litigation, from service of process through trial and appeal. The Appellate Division, Appellate Term, and Court of Appeals create a rich and ever-evolving body of case law that practitioners must follow.
Attorney Jason Tenenbaum has practiced across these areas for over 24 years, writing more than 1,000 appellate briefs and publishing over 2,353 legal articles that attorneys and clients rely on for guidance. The analysis in this article reflects real courtroom experience — from motion practice in Civil Court and Supreme Court to oral arguments before the Appellate Division — and a deep understanding of how New York courts actually apply the law in practice.
About This Topic
Procedural Issues in New York Litigation
New York civil procedure governs every stage of litigation — from pleading requirements and service of process to motion practice, discovery deadlines, and trial procedures. The CPLR creates strict procedural rules that can make or break a case regardless of the underlying merits. These articles examine the procedural pitfalls, timing requirements, and strategic considerations that practitioners face in New York state courts, with a particular focus on no-fault insurance and personal injury practice.
187 published articles in Procedural Issues
Keep Reading
More Procedural Issues Analysis
How to Talk to a Judge in New York: What to Say, What to Avoid, and How to Present Yourself
Address the judge as 'Your Honor,' stand when you speak, wait to be recognized, and keep answers short and honest. A Long Island trial lawyer explains.
Feb 24, 2026
CPLR § 2106 Amendment Eliminates Affidavit Notarization Requirement: What This Means for New York Litigation
New York's CPLR 2106 permits affirmations in place of many sworn documents. See the 2024 and 2025 changes, exceptions, and historical case notes.
Feb 18, 2026
A signature placed at the direction of the signor
Court ruling clarifies that electronic signatures placed at the direction of the signor are legally valid, even when appearing as facsimile stamps on peer review reports.
Mar 12, 2012
Fee Schedule Defense Requirements in No-Fault Insurance Cases | Long Island & NYC Legal Analysis
Expert legal analysis of fee schedule defense requirements in no-fault insurance cases.
Mar 26, 2010
202.48 – settle an order
Court rules on discretionary application of 60-day settlement order deadline, prioritizing judicial efficiency over strict procedural compliance in liability cases.
Nov 7, 2018
Marked-Off Cases in New York Civil Court: Why CPLR 3404 Dismissal Does Not Apply
New York Civil Court cases marked off the calendar cannot be dismissed under CPLR 3404, but may remain dormant indefinitely without revival options.
Mar 18, 2014Was this article helpful?
Disclaimer: This article is published by the Law Office of Jason Tenenbaum, P.C. for informational and educational purposes only. It does not constitute legal advice, and no attorney-client relationship is formed by reading this content. The legal principles discussed may not apply to your specific situation, and the law may have changed since this article was last updated.
New York law varies by jurisdiction — court decisions in one Appellate Division department may not be followed in another, and local court rules in Nassau County Supreme Court differ from those in Suffolk County Supreme Court, Kings County Civil Court, or Queens County Supreme Court. The Appellate Division, Second Department (which covers Long Island, Brooklyn, Queens, and Staten Island) and the Appellate Term (which hears appeals from lower courts) each have distinct procedural requirements and precedents that affect litigation strategy.
If you need legal help with a procedural issues matter, contact our office at (516) 750-0595 for a free consultation. We serve clients throughout Long Island (Huntington, Babylon, Islip, Brookhaven, Smithtown, Riverhead, Southampton, East Hampton), Nassau County (Hempstead, Garden City, Mineola, Great Neck, Manhasset, Freeport, Long Beach, Rockville Centre, Valley Stream, Westbury, Hicksville, Massapequa), Suffolk County (Hauppauge, Deer Park, Bay Shore, Central Islip, Patchogue, Brentwood), Queens, Brooklyn, Manhattan, the Bronx, Staten Island, and Westchester County. Prior results do not guarantee a similar outcome.
