In Burns v. Belafsky, 326 N.J.Super. 462, 468, 741 A.2d 649 (App.Div.1999), certif. granted, 164 N.J. 189, 752 A.2d 1291, (2000), the Court held that "counsel's neglect qualifies as good cause thereby establishing the right to an extension where the affidavit filed sets forth a 'threshold showing' of malpractice and is filed within the extension time period permitted by the statute." The Court reasoned that the Legislature, in preventing the filing of meritless claims, did "not intend to establish a period of limitation beyond which claims should be barred." Ibid. Although counsel's oversight "would not qualify as good cause to excuse a failure to file within the period set by a statute of limitations," the purpose of precluding stale claims is quite different than weeding out meritless claims. Ibid. The Court held that "absent demonstrable prejudice, 'it is neither necessary nor proper to visit the sins of the attorney upon his blameless client.' " Id. at 471, 741 A.2d 649.