From Casetext: Smarter Legal Research

Lamar v. N.Y

Appellate Division of the Supreme Court of New York, First Department
Dec 3, 2009
68 A.D.3d 449 (N.Y. App. Div. 2009)

Opinion

December 3, 2009.

Order, Supreme Court, Bronx County (Larry S. Schachner, J.), entered August 6, 2008, which denied plaintiff's motion for a default judgment against the City of New York and granted the City's cross motion for an order deeming its answer to be timely served nunc pro tunc, unanimously affirmed, without costs.

Before: Saxe, J.P., Friedman, Acosta, Renwick and Abdus-Salaam, JJ.


While the City's generalized assertion of law office failure as the excuse for its delay is not particularly compelling, it constitutes "good cause" for the delay ( see Spira v New York City Tr. Auth., 49 AD3d 478). No prejudice to plaintiff has been shown ( see Cirillo v Macy's, Inc., 61 AD3d 538, 540), and New York's public policy strongly favors litigating matters on the merits ( see Silverio v City of New York, 266 AD2d 129). An affidavit of merit is not required where no default order or judgment has been entered ( see Cirillo, supra).


Summaries of

Lamar v. N.Y

Appellate Division of the Supreme Court of New York, First Department
Dec 3, 2009
68 A.D.3d 449 (N.Y. App. Div. 2009)
Case details for

Lamar v. N.Y

Case Details

Full title:MICHAEL E. LAMAR, Appellant, v. CITY OF NEW YORK, Respondent, et al.…

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

Date published: Dec 3, 2009

Citations

68 A.D.3d 449 (N.Y. App. Div. 2009)
888 N.Y.S.2d 883

Citing Cases

Velasquez v. The N.Y. City Transit Authority/MTA

Defendant satisfied the requirements of CPLR 3012(d), which authorizes an extension of time to appear and…

Velasquez v. The N.Y. City Transit Authority/MTA

Defendant satisfied the requirements of CPLR 3012(d), which authorizes an extension of time to appear and…