From Casetext: Smarter Legal Research

Lopez v. City of New York

Appellate Division of the Supreme Court of New York, First Department
Jan 9, 1992
179 A.D.2d 388 (N.Y. App. Div. 1992)

Opinion

January 9, 1992

Appeal from the Supreme Court, Bronx County (Herbert Shapiro, J.).


We assume, in plaintiff's favor, that his motion for a default judgment was made within one year of defendants' defaults, as required by CPLR 3215 (c), but nevertheless affirm denial of the motion since defendants demonstrated a reasonable excuse for their defaults, namely, law office failure (CPLR 2005), and a meritorious defense, namely that the complaint may be time-barred because the notices of claim, although served within 90 days after the plaintiff was notified that his position had been terminated were not served within 90 days after the date of the disputed letter giving rise to the action. We note that plaintiff does not claim prejudice as a result of the delay (see, Pieretti v. Flair DeArt, 99 A.D.2d 980, 981).

Concur — Sullivan, J.P., Carro, Milonas, Asch and Rubin, JJ.


Summaries of

Lopez v. City of New York

Appellate Division of the Supreme Court of New York, First Department
Jan 9, 1992
179 A.D.2d 388 (N.Y. App. Div. 1992)
Case details for

Lopez v. City of New York

Case Details

Full title:BERNARD LOPEZ, Appellant, v. CITY OF NEW YORK et al., Respondents

Court:Appellate Division of the Supreme Court of New York, First Department

Date published: Jan 9, 1992

Citations

179 A.D.2d 388 (N.Y. App. Div. 1992)
578 N.Y.S.2d 551

Citing Cases

Baldini v. New York City Employees Retirement System

In order to vacate a default the moving party must demonstrate a meritorious defense and a reasonable excuse…

Matter of Ajamian

As excuse for the delay, petitioner's attorney averred that, although a reply to the counterclaims was duly…