CPLR 3216 again

Restoration Sports & Spine v Geico Ins. Co., 2014 NY Slip Op 51729(U)(App. Term 2d Dept. 2014)

“Plaintiffs commenced this action to recover assigned first-party no-fault benefits in September 2008. On June 25, 2011, defendant served a 90-day notice pursuant to CPLR 3216 (b) (3). Plaintiffs did not file a notice of trial, move to vacate the 90-day notice, or move to extend the 90 days. In April 2012, defendant moved to dismiss the complaint pursuant to CPLR 3216. The Civil Court denied defendant’s motion.”

“Except under circumstances not presented here, a plaintiff seeking to avoid dismissal pursuant to CPLR 3216 is required to demonstrate both a justifiable excuse for its delay and a meritorious cause of action (see CPLR 3216 ; Belson v Dix Hills Air Conditioning, Inc., 119 AD3d 623 ; Davis v Goodsell, 6 AD3d 382, 384 ;Lama v Mohammad, 29 Misc 3d 68 ). Here, plaintiffs’ attorney’s conclusory statement that bills had been submitted to defendant and had not been paid within 30 days of their submission was insufficient to demonstrate the merit of plaintiffs’ case (see Sortino v Fisher, 20 AD2d 25 ; Lama, 29 Misc 3d 68;Comeau v McClacken, 5 Misc 3d 134, 2004 NY Slip Op 51455 ). Moreover, plaintiff did not commence this action upon a verified complaint (CPLR 105 ).”

CPLR 3216 at work…

Related Articles

• Combating Litigation Delay Tactics in New York No-Fault Insurance Cases
• Single Motion Rule and Statute of Limitations: Long Island & NYC Legal Guide
• A party that really blew it gets not only a second but a third chance to correct his mistake
• How to Talk to a Judge in New York: What to Say, What to Avoid, and How to Present Yourself
• New York No-Fault Insurance Law

Legal Update (February 2026): Since this 2014 post, CPLR 3216 has undergone several amendments affecting dismissal procedures and timeline requirements for abandoned actions. Additionally, court interpretations of the “justifiable excuse” and “meritorious cause of action” standards in no-fault cases may have evolved through subsequent appellate decisions. Practitioners should verify current CPLR 3216 provisions and recent case law developments when addressing motions to dismiss for failure to prosecute.