Opinion
June 14, 1990
Appeal from the Supreme Court, Bronx County (Howard R. Silver, J.).
Where the public authority defendants interposed an answer in timely fashion and sufficiently demonstrated they were not aware of the pendency of the action against their employee, whom they are bound, under Public Authorities Law § 1212, to indemnify, there was no abuse of discretion in denying this motion to enter a default judgment against the individual employee defendant (see, Willis v. City of New York, 154 A.D.2d 289). In such circumstances, rigid adherence to a requirement that there be an affidavit of merit by the individual defendant himself would be inappropriate (Mufalli v. Ford Motor Co., 105 A.D.2d 642, 643-644). We have previously held the court may extend a defendant's time to answer pursuant to CPLR 3012 (d) in the absence of a cross motion for such relief (Shure v. Village of Westhampton Beach, 121 A.D.2d 887).
Concur — Sullivan, J.P., Carro, Wallach, Smith and Rubin, JJ.