From Casetext: Smarter Legal Research

Silverio v. City of New York

Appellate Division of the Supreme Court of New York, First Department
Nov 23, 1999
266 A.D.2d 129 (N.Y. App. Div. 1999)

Opinion

November 23, 1999

Order, Supreme Court, New York County (Louis York, J.), entered July 13, 1998, which denied plaintiff's motion for a default judgment against the police officer defendants, and granted defendants' cross motion to compel acceptance of an answer on their behalf, upon payment of $350, unanimously affirmed, without costs.

Soledad Rubert Richard Gross, for Plaintiff-Appellant

Kathleen J. Cahill, for Defendants-Respondents.

SULLIVAN, J.P., WALLACH, RUBIN, SAXE, FRIEDMAN, JJ.


Alleging personal injuries as the result of the acts of two on-duty police officers, plaintiff commenced this action against the City of New York and the two police officers. The City timely answered on its own behalf. Plaintiff moved for a default judgment against the police officers and defendants cross-moved for leave to interpose an answer on the police officers' behalf some three months after their time to answer had expired. The City maintained it was late in answering on the police officers' behalf due to its investigation of its obligation to defend them ( General Municipal Law § 50-k[2]), and submitted the proposed answer, verified by an employee in the corporation counsel's office, as the statement of merit.

The court's refusal to enter a default judgment against the police officers was not an abuse of discretion (see, Mufalli v. Ford Motor Co., 105 A.D.2d 642; cf., Aloizos v. Trinity Realty Corp., 171 A.D.2d 426). There was no showing that plaintiff suffered any prejudice by reason of the police officers' delay in answering the complaint, nor are there present other circumstances warranting deviation from New York's strong public policy in favor of litigating matters on the merits (see, Scott v. Allstate Ins. Co., 124 A.D.2d 481, 484). Finally, in the circumstances presented here, rigid adherence to a requirement that there be affidavits of merit by the police officers themselves would be inappropriate (Drawhorn v. Iglesias, 254 A.D.2d 97; Vines v. Manhattan Bronx Surface Operating Auth., 162 A.D.2d 229).

THIS CONSTITUTES THE DECISION AND ORDER OF SUPREME COURT, APPELLATE DIVISION, FIRST DEPARTMENT.


Summaries of

Silverio v. City of New York

Appellate Division of the Supreme Court of New York, First Department
Nov 23, 1999
266 A.D.2d 129 (N.Y. App. Div. 1999)
Case details for

Silverio v. City of New York

Case Details

Full title:JUBERKY SILVERIO, Plaintiff-Appellant, v. THE CITY OF NEW YORK, et al.…

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

Date published: Nov 23, 1999

Citations

266 A.D.2d 129 (N.Y. App. Div. 1999)
698 N.Y.S.2d 669

Citing Cases

Myers v. City of N.Y.

The City's delay in answering on behalf of the individual defendants was reasonable in that it was due to…

Guzetti v. New York

Defendants were not required to submit an affidavit of merit (see Nason v Fisher, 309 AD2d 526). This State's…