From Casetext: Smarter Legal Research

Aloizos v. Trinity Realty Corp.

Appellate Division of the Supreme Court of New York, First Department
Mar 7, 1991
171 A.D.2d 426 (N.Y. App. Div. 1991)

Opinion

March 7, 1991

Appeal from the Supreme Court, New York County (Burton S. Sherman, J.).


Plaintiff Christos Aloizos was injured on February 8, 1989 when he fell from a scaffold while performing spackling work at 350 Hudson Street. The plaintiff was employed by Murray Hill Painters, the subcontractor of defendant-appellant JDK Group, Inc., the general contractor on the project at the building owned by defendant Trinity Realty Corporation. Despite having been granted an extension of time to answer the complaint, conditioned on waiver of jurisdictional defenses, defendant JDK failed to timely serve an answer pursuant to the stipulation. Moreover, the answer which was served raised jurisdictional defenses despite the agreement to waive those defenses.

While the court has broad discretion in granting applications for extensions of time to answer under CPLR 3012 (d) upon such terms as may be just and upon a showing of reasonable excuse for delay (see, Mufalli v Ford Motor Co., 105 A.D.2d 642, 643), the refusal to grant such relief in this case, despite the fact that defendant moved prior to the plaintiffs' motion for a default judgment (see, Junior v City of New York, 85 A.D.2d 683), was not an abuse of discretion. The failure to answer, contrary to the defendant's counsel's characterization of it, was not inadvertent, but was the result of the defendant's attempt to obtain the benefit of the stipulation extending its time to answer, which was conditioned on defendant's waiver of its jurisdictional defense, without fulfilling that condition. The delay can in no way be characterized as law office failure.

Examination of the affidavit of merits submitted by the defendant and signed by its office manager Francis Cohen, indicates that it is indeed conclusory and would have been insufficient even if it were properly notarized. Thus, in this situation where Labor Law § 240 imposes strict liability, the motion and cross-motion were properly decided notwithstanding the fact that there was minimal prejudice to the plaintiffs in terms of time lost.

Concur — Murphy, P.J., Milonas, Ross and Asch, JJ.


Summaries of

Aloizos v. Trinity Realty Corp.

Appellate Division of the Supreme Court of New York, First Department
Mar 7, 1991
171 A.D.2d 426 (N.Y. App. Div. 1991)
Case details for

Aloizos v. Trinity Realty Corp.

Case Details

Full title:CHRISTOS ALOIZOS et al., Respondents, v. TRINITY REALTY CORPORATION…

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

Date published: Mar 7, 1991

Citations

171 A.D.2d 426 (N.Y. App. Div. 1991)
567 N.Y.S.2d 7

Citing Cases

Suifehne Yongtai Econ. & Trade Co. v. Unicos Enter., Inc.

Absent discernible prejudice from Hedvat's delay, id.; Mut, Mar. Off., Inc. v. Joy Constr. Corp., 39 A.D.3d…

Silverio v. City of New York

The City maintained it was late in answering on the police officers' behalf due to its investigation of its…