City of New York v. AFA Protective Systems, Inc.

Appellate Division of the Supreme Court of New York

City of New York v. AFA Protective Systems, Inc.

80 A.D.2d 820, 437 N.Y.S.2d 323, 1981 N.Y. App. Div. LEXIS 10628

CourtAppellate Division of the Supreme Court of the State of New York

DecidedMarch 31, 1981

StatusPublished

This text of 80 A.D.2d 820 (City of New York v. AFA Protective Systems, Inc.) is published on Counsel Stack Legal Research, covering Appellate Division of the Supreme Court of the State of New York primary law. Counsel Stack provides free access to over 12 million legal documents including statutes, case law, regulations, and constitutions.

Bluebook

City of New York v. AFA Protective Systems, Inc., 80 A.D.2d 820, 437 N.Y.S.2d 323, 1981 N.Y. App. Div. LEXIS 10628 (N.Y. Ct. App. 1981).

Pincite

Opinion

Order, Supreme Court, New York County, entered September 9, 1980, which denied defendant’s motion to dismiss the action for failure to serve a timely complaint, and granted plaintiff’s cross motion to compel acceptance of the complaint, unanimously reversed, on the law, without costs or disbursements, and the motion to dismiss granted. Plaintiff, the City of New York, delayed almost eight months in serving a complaint in response to defendant’s notice of appearance and demand for a copy of the complaint. The only justification offered is that the notice of appearance and demand were misrouted at the mailroom of the office of the Corporation [821]*821Counsel. Even were such “law office failure” found to be an acceptable excuse, the fact remains that the complaint was not served for another six months. No excuse whatever is offered to justify this latter delay. Law office failure cannot serve to defeat a motion to dismiss made pursuant to CPLR 3012 (subd [b]). (Barasch v Micucci, 49 NY2d 594.) As a litigant the city is not exempt from those rules which require the orderly and efficient prosecution of lawsuits. (Beetz v City of New York, 73 AD2d 925, 926; City of New York v Ingber, 80 AD2d 773.) Concur — Kupferman, J.P., Sandler, Sullivan, Markewich and Fein, JJ.

Free access — add to your briefcase to read the full text and ask questions with AI

Order, Supreme Court, New York County, entered September 9, 1980, which denied defendant’s motion to dismiss the action for failure to serve a timely complaint, and granted plaintiff’s cross motion to compel acceptance of the complaint, unanimously reversed, on the law, without costs or disbursements, and the motion to dismiss granted. Plaintiff, the City of New York, delayed almost eight months in serving a complaint in response to defendant’s notice of appearance and demand for a copy of the complaint. The only justification offered is that the notice of appearance and demand were misrouted at the mailroom of the office of the Corporation [821]*821Counsel. Even were such “law office failure” found to be an acceptable excuse, the fact remains that the complaint was not served for another six months. No excuse whatever is offered to justify this latter delay. Law office failure cannot serve to defeat a motion to dismiss made pursuant to CPLR 3012 (subd [b]). (Barasch v Micucci, 49 NY2d 594.) As a litigant the city is not exempt from those rules which require the orderly and efficient prosecution of lawsuits. (Beetz v City of New York, 73 AD2d 925, 926; City of New York v Ingber, 80 AD2d 773.) Concur — Kupferman, J.P., Sandler, Sullivan, Markewich and Fein, JJ.

Cite This Page — Counsel Stack

Bluebook (online)

80 A.D.2d 820, 437 N.Y.S.2d 323, 1981 N.Y. App. Div. LEXIS 10628, Counsel Stack Legal Research, https://law.counselstack.com/opinion/city-of-new-york-v-afa-protective-systems-inc-nyappdiv-1981.

Opinion

Related

Cite This Page — Counsel Stack