Kel Management Corp. v. Rogers & Wells

N.Y.

Court: New York Court of Appeals

Citations: 64 N.Y.2d 904, 488 N.Y.S.2d 156, 477 N.E.2d 458, 1985 N.Y. LEXIS 15918

Decision Date: 2/7/1985

Jurisdiction: NY

Bluebook Citation: Kel Management Corp. v. Rogers & Wells, 64 N.Y.2d 904, 488 N.Y.S.2d 156, 477 N.E.2d 458, 1985 N.Y. LEXIS 15918 (1985)

More Cases: N.Y. decisions from 1985

Citation analytics

How this case sits in the citation network, derived from CiteLaw's graph of published opinions.

★Highly CitedTop 3% most-cited · cited by 88 decisions

Citing decisions

Authorities cited

Courts citing

Citations by decade

1980s1990s2000s2010s2020s

Courts citing this case

N.Y. App. Div.84

N.Y.2

N.Y. Sup. Ct.1

N.Y. Sup. Ct., Bronx Cty.1

Most recently cited by10

2023Barker v. Gervera N.Y. App. Div.
2021Fawn Second Ave. LLC v. First Am. Tit. Ins. Co. N.Y. App. Div.
2016Gear Up, Inc. v. City of New York N.Y. App. Div.
2015Roberts v. Northington N.Y. App. Div.
2014Carducci v. Russell N.Y. App. Div.
2014McIntosh v. Genesee Valley Laser Centre N.Y. App. Div.
2013Berges v. Pfizer, Inc. N.Y. App. Div.
2013Dunlop v. Saint Leo Great R.C. Church N.Y. App. Div.
2012Hernandez v. Chaparro N.Y. App. Div.
2009Fasano v. J.C. Penney Corp. N.Y. App. Div.

Cites 4 cases

Barasch v. Micucci
Amodeo v. Radler
Canter v. Mulnick
Stolowitz v. Mount Sinai Hospital

Counts reflect decisions in the CiteLaw corpus and may lag very recent opinions.

Opinion

Kel Management Corp. et al., Respondents, v Rogers & Wells, Appellant.

Attorneys

APPEARANCES OF COUNSEL
Bruce E. Braverman and Leo P. Larkin, Jr., for appellant.
Sylvester J. Garamella and Vincent P. Rao for respondents.

majority

Memorandum.

The order of the Appellate Division should be reversed, with costs, and the motion to dismiss the complaint granted unconditionally.

This court has previously held that a party opposing a CPLR 3012 (b) motion to dismiss based upon law office failure is obligated to submit an affidavit of merit containing evidentiary facts sufficient to establish a prima facie case. (Canter v Mulnick, 60 NY2d 689.) Here, plaintiffs served the complaint upon defendant more than three and one-half months past the statutorily required date, and when faced with a CPLR 3012 (b) motion to dismiss, failed to submit an affidavit of merit. Because of this deficiency, it was error, as a matter of law, not to grant the motion to dismiss without condition. (Stolowitz v Mount Sinai Hosp., 60 NY2d 685, 686; Amodeo v Radler, 59 NY2d 1001; Barasch v Micucci, 49 NY2d 594, 599.) In view of this disposition, we express no view as to the merits of either plaintiffs’ underlying claim or proffered justifications for belated service of its complaint.

Question certified answered in the negative.

Chief Judge Wachtler and Judges Jasen, Meyer, Simons, Kaye and Alexander concur in memorandum.

On review of submissions pursuant to section 500.4 of the Rules of the Court of Appeals (22 NYCRR 500.4), order reversed, etc.