Hyperlawhypertext legal database Lusker v. 85-87 Mercer Street Associates, Inc. 272 A.D.2d 278

← Cases

Lusker v. 85-87 Mercer Street Associates, Inc.

272 A.D.2d 278 Court N.Y. App. Div. Decision date 2000-05-30 English

Contents

Majority

p. 278
Ron Lusker et al., Appellants-Respondents, v 85-87 Mercer Street Associates, Inc., et al., Defendants, and Marci Zelmanoff, Respondent-Appellant.
[709 NYS2d 398]

—Orders, Supreme Court, New York County (Paula Omansky, J.), entered January 7 and June 9, 1999, which’ inter alia, granted defendant-respondent-appellant’s motion to dismiss the action for failure to timely serve a complaint, and determined that plaintiffs should reimburse defendant-respondent-appellant for her reasonable attorneys’ fees as a sanction for having commenced this frivolous action, unanimously affirmed, with costs.

The action was properly dismissed in the absence of a reasonable excuse for not having served a complaint for more than a year after defendant served her notice of appearance .and demand for a complaint (CPLR 3012 [b]). Sanctions were properly imposed against plaintiffs because of the complete

p. 279
lack of merit to the action and their history of repetitive and vexatious litigation against defendant (22 NYCRR 130-1.1; see, Corto v Lefrak, 203 AD2d 94 ). We have considered and rejected plaintiffs’ other arguments. Concur — Wallach, J. P., Lerner, Andrias and Buckley, JJ.

Cases cited