## Facts

- Jefferson Middle School in Jamestown, New York, underwent renovation in 1992.
- In 1994–1995, more than 60 plaintiffs filed multiple actions against numerous defendants involved in the renovation, alleging personal injuries from toxic substances released during the work.
- The trial court issued scheduling and discovery orders starting in 1995; plaintiffs repeatedly defaulted on discovery obligations and missed court-imposed deadlines.
- The court imposed sanctions and granted multiple extensions, expressly warning that dismissal could result from continued noncompliance.
- After further missed deadlines following findings that counsel’s conduct was delay-oriented, the court dismissed the prior actions on May 19, 2000.
- While appeals from those dismissals were pending, 34 plaintiffs commenced new actions on December 19, 2000, based on the same events and against many of the same defendants.
- Defendants moved to dismiss the new actions as time-barred; plaintiffs invoked CPLR 205(a), asserting the new filings were permitted within six months after termination of the prior actions.
- The trial court and Appellate Division held CPLR 205(a) unavailable because the prior actions had been dismissed for neglect to prosecute.

## Issues

1. Whether a dismissal for repeated failure to comply with discovery orders constitutes a dismissal “for neglect to prosecute” under CPLR 205(a).
2. Whether, given the nature of the prior dismissals, plaintiffs could invoke CPLR 205(a) to recommence otherwise time-barred actions within six months.

## Decision

- The New York Court of Appeals affirmed dismissal of the recommenced actions as time-barred.
- The Court held that dismissal based on persistent discovery noncompliance is a dismissal “for neglect to prosecute” within the meaning of CPLR 205(a).
- Because the prior terminations fell within CPLR 205(a)’s neglect-to-prosecute exception, the savings statute did not permit recommencement after the limitations period expired.

## Legal Principles

- CPLR 205(a) permits recommencement within six months after termination of a timely action, except when the prior action was terminated for specified reasons, including “neglect to prosecute.”
- “Neglect to prosecute” is not limited to dismissals expressly labeled as such or to dismissals under a particular procedural mechanism; courts look to the substance of the termination.
- Repeated, unjustified failure to comply with discovery obligations and court orders that delays case progress can constitute neglect to prosecute, placing the dismissal within CPLR 205(a)’s exception.
- The savings statute is intended to mitigate harsh limitations outcomes for non-merits terminations, but it does not protect plaintiffs whose lack of diligence caused the prior dismissal.

## Conclusion

The Court of Appeals held that actions dismissed after prolonged discovery defaults and repeated violations of court scheduling orders are terminated for “neglect to prosecute,” so CPLR 205(a) does not allow plaintiffs to recommence those claims after the statute of limitations has run.


Andrea v. Arnone, Hedin, Casker, Kennedy & Drake, Architects & Landscape Architects, P.C., 5 N.Y.3d 514 (N.Y. 2005)