Eaton v. Crystal & Run Management, Inc., 63 N.Y.2d 985 (1984)

A disagreement between attorneys regarding discovery procedures, particularly concerning the necessity of obtaining a court order for a deposition to frame a complaint, does not constitute law office failure and may justify an extension for serving the complaint.

Summary

This case addresses whether a delay in serving a complaint due to a discovery dispute between attorneys constitutes law office failure, which would typically not excuse the delay. The Court of Appeals held that such a dispute, specifically concerning whether a court order was required to depose the defendant to frame the complaint, did not constitute law office failure. Given the indication of merit in the plaintiff’s claim and the lack of prejudice to the defendant, the Court remitted the case to the Appellate Division to reconsider the exercise of its discretion.

Facts

The plaintiff commenced an action against the defendant for slander, libel, trade disparagement, fraud, and other related torts by serving a verified summons with notice. The notice specified the nature of the action, the damages sought, and the plaintiff’s intent to depose the defendant to frame the complaint. The defendant’s attorneys responded with a notice of appearance and a demand for a complaint, indicating their intention to oppose the deposition without a court order. When the complaint was not served within the 20-day statutory period, the defendant moved to dismiss the action.

Procedural History

The defendant moved to dismiss the action for failure to serve a complaint. The plaintiff cross-moved for a court order to compel the deposition of the defendant. Special Term denied the plaintiff’s cross-motion but also denied the defendant’s motion to dismiss, provided the plaintiff served the complaint within 20 days. The plaintiff complied. The Appellate Division reversed the Special Term order and dismissed the action, equating the necessity for discovery with law office failure. The Court of Appeals reversed the Appellate Division’s order and remitted the case for reconsideration.

Issue(s)

Whether a failure to timely serve a complaint, resulting from a disagreement between attorneys regarding discovery procedures (specifically, whether a court order is required to depose a defendant to frame a complaint), constitutes law office failure, thereby precluding an extension of time to serve the complaint.

Holding

No, because the disagreement over discovery procedures, particularly the necessity of a court order for a deposition to frame the complaint, does not constitute law office failure, and given the indication of merit and lack of prejudice to the defendant, the lower court could properly exercise its discretion to allow the late service of the complaint.

Court’s Reasoning

The Court of Appeals reasoned that the delay was not due to law office failure but rather a legitimate dispute concerning discovery procedures. The court considered CPLR 3016(a), which requires that in an action for libel or slander, “the particular words complained of shall be set forth in the complaint.” This requirement necessitates some form of discovery to ascertain those specific words, distinguishing the situation from mere neglect. The court emphasized that the defendant was aware of the nature of the action from the verified summons and demonstrated no prejudice from the short delay. The court distinguished this situation from typical law office failure, where neglect or inattention is the primary cause of the delay. It was noted that the Appellate Division erred in concluding that this constituted law office failure, thus the case was remitted back for reconsideration of the discretionary aspects. The court referenced Miskiewicz v Hartley Rest. Corp., 58 NY2d 963 in support of remitting for discretionary reconsideration.