| Louis v MTA Long Is. Bus Co. |
| 2007 NY Slip Op 07410 [44 AD3d 628] |
| October 2, 2007 |
| Appellate Division, Second Department |
| George Louis, Appellant, v MTA Long Island Bus Co. etal., Defendants and Third-Party Plaintiffs-Respondents. Joseph Laurenti et al., Third-PartyDefendants-Respondents. |
—[*1] Sciretta & Venterina, LLP, Staten Island, N.Y. (Marilyn Venterina of counsel), fordefendants third-party plaintiffs-respondents. Bryan M. Rothenberg (Fiedelman & McGaw, Jericho, N.Y. [James K. O'Sullivan] ofcounsel), for third-party defendants-respondents.
In an action to recover damages for personal injuries, the plaintiff appeals from an order ofthe Supreme Court, Nassau County (Jonas, J.), dated August 14, 2006, which denied his motionto vacate the dismissal of the action pursuant to CPLR 3216 and to extend the time, in effect, tofile a note of issue.
Ordered that the order is affirmed, with one bill of costs.
The certification order dated September 26, 2005 directing the plaintiff to file a note of issuewithin 90 days and warning that the action would be deemed dismissed without further order ofthe court if the plaintiff failed to comply with this directive had the same effect as a valid 90-daynotice pursuant to CPLR 3216 (seeHoffman v Kessler, 28 AD3d 718 [2006]; Rezene v Williams, 22 AD3d 656 [2005]; C&S Realty, Inc. v Soloff, 22 AD3d515 [2005]). Since the plaintiff failed to timely comply with this directive or to move, beforethe default date, for an extension of time to comply, the action was properly dismissed pursuantto CPLR 3216 (see C&S Realty, Inc. vSoloff, 22 AD3d 515 [2005]; Vinikour [*2]v Jamaica Hosp., 2 AD3d518 [2003]; Trust Co. of N.J. v Genser, 271 AD2d 524 [2000]). To vacate thedismissal of the action pursuant to CPLR 3216, the plaintiff was required to demonstrate areasonable excuse for his default and a meritorious cause of action (see Bowman v Kusnick, 35 AD3d643 [2006]; Bokhari v Home DepotU.S.A., 4 AD3d 381, 382 [2004]; Sustad v Karagiannis, 305 AD2d 664 [2003]).The plaintiff failed to submit any medical evidence demonstrating that he sustained a seriousinjury within the meaning of Insurance Law § 5102 (d) as a result of the subject motorvehicle accident (see Rezene vWilliams, 22 AD3d 656 [2005]; Sharpe v Osorio, 21 AD3d 467 [2005]; Uddin v Mirza, 10 AD3d 722[2004]; LaMacchia v Rogers, 8AD3d 346 [2004]). Since the plaintiff failed to demonstrate a meritorious cause of action,the Supreme Court providently exercised its discretion in denying his motion. Schmidt, J.P.,Spolzino, Skelos, Lifson and McCarthy, JJ., concur.