Lopez v. City of New York

5 Citing cases

  1. Geneva Ass'n of Retired Teachers v. Geneva City Sch. Dist.

    155 A.D.3d 1666 (N.Y. App. Div. 2017)   Cited 2 times

    Here, defendant had several possible meritorious defenses to the complaint as a whole or to various claims within the complaint. For example, plaintiffs had not filed and served a notice of claim as required by Education Law § 3813(1) (see Lopez v. City of New York, 179 A.D.2d 388, 388–389, 578 N.Y.S.2d 414 [1st Dept.1992] ), and several claims were barred by the one-year statute of limitations contained in section 3813(2–b) (see Fapco Landscaping, Inc. v. Valhalla Union Free Sch. Dist., 61 A.D.3d 922, 923, 877 N.Y.S.2d 448 [2d Dept.2009] ). Moreover, with respect to the underlying merits of the allegations, based on the language in the excerpts of the CBAs contained in the record on appeal, it appears that defendant may have had a meritorious defense to all of the allegations in the complaint (see Non–Instruction Adm'rs & Supervisors Retirees Assn. v. School Dist. of City of Niagara Falls, 118 A.D.3d 1280, 1282–1283, 988 N.Y.S.2d 343 [4th Dept.2014] ; cf. Kolbe v. Tibbetts, 22 N.Y.3d 344, 353–354, 980 N.Y.S.2d 903, 3 N.E.3d 1151 [2013] ; Guerrucci v. School Dist. of City of Niagara Falls, 126 A.D.3d 1498, 1499, 6 N.Y.S.3d 879 [4th Dept.2015], lv. dismissed 25 N.Y.3d 1194, 16 N.Y.S.3d 52, 37 N.E.3d 111 [2015] ). Plaintiffs further contend, in the alternative, that the court should have p

  2. Baldini v. New York City Employees Retirement System

    254 A.D.2d 128 (N.Y. App. Div. 1998)   Cited 2 times

    In order to vacate a default the moving party must demonstrate a meritorious defense and a reasonable excuse for the delay ( Arias v. Sanchez, 227 A.D.2d 284). The courts have the discretion to consider law office failure as a reasonable excuse (CPLR 2005; Lopez v. City of New York, 179 A.D.2d 388). Here, it was an abuse of discretion to reject NYCERS's answer when it was served nine days after the date set by the Court but two weeks before the scheduled argument date ( Matter of Murray v. Matusiak, 247 A.D.2d 303; Matter of Kaufman v. Board of Educ., 210 A.D.2d 226).

  3. Arias v. Sanchez

    227 A.D.2d 284 (N.Y. App. Div. 1996)   Cited 6 times

    In the matter at bar, there is, in our view, no question that defendant possesses a meritorious defense to the underlying action. Further, courts have the discretion to consider law office failure as an excuse for the purposes of vacating a default (CPLR 2005; Lopez v. City of New York, 179 A.D.2d 388; MacFarlandBldrs. v. Raymond E. Kelly, Inc., 107 A.D.2d 972). The Corporation Counsel's failure to answer on behalf of Sanchez appears to be the result of a breakdown in communication between the counsel's office and HHC, as there is no discernible intent to abandon the action ( see, Gulledge v. Adams, 108 A.D.2d 950, 951).

  4. Matter of Ajamian

    225 A.D.2d 992 (N.Y. App. Div. 1996)   Cited 5 times

    As excuse for the delay, petitioner's attorney averred that, although a reply to the counterclaims was duly prepared for mailing in December 1993, it was instead placed in petitioner's file through a clerical error that was only discovered after respondents' motion papers were served. Under the circumstances, we find no reason to disturb the court's determination that petitioner demonstrated a reasonable excuse for her default, namely, law office failure (CPLR 2005; see, Busa v Busa, 196 A.D.2d 267, 269; Lopez v City of New York, 179 A.D.2d 388, 389). Moreover, we conclude, as did Surrogate's Court, that the verified pleadings in the record sufficiently fulfilled petitioner's obligation to present a meritorious defense to the counterclaims ( see, Matter of Waite v Whalen, 215 A.D.2d 922, 924; cf., West Shore Bldrs. v Staller, 221 A.D.2d 881; Iovine v Caldwell, 215 A.D.2d 977, 978).

  5. Bonifacio v. Gomez

    2020 N.Y. Slip Op. 32172 (N.Y. Sup. Ct. 2020)

    (see Icon Equipment Distributors, Inc. v Gordon Environmental & Mechanical Corp., 272 AD2d 579 [2d Dept 2000], lv dismissed 96 NY2d 769 [2001]; Patterson v Patterson, 220 AD2d 731, 732 [2d Dept 1995]). In any event, Plaintiff has offered sufficient cause for the delay in entering a default judgment (see, CPLR 2005; Lopez v City of New York, 179 AD2d 388, 389 [1st Dept 1992]); and Plaintiffs' verified complaint is sufficient to demonstrate the meritorious nature of her cause of action (see, Manago v Giorlando, 143 AD2d 646 [2d Dept 1988];, Grosso v Hauck, 99 AD2d 750 [2d Dept 1984])