Lisojo v. Phillip

Appellate Division of the Supreme Court of New York

Lisojo v. Phillip

188 A.D.2d 369, 591 N.Y.S.2d 40, 1992 N.Y. App. Div. LEXIS 13747

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

DecidedDecember 10, 1992

StatusPublished

Cited by7 cases

This text of 188 A.D.2d 369 (Lisojo v. Phillip) 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

Lisojo v. Phillip, 188 A.D.2d 369, 591 N.Y.S.2d 40, 1992 N.Y. App. Div. LEXIS 13747 (N.Y. Ct. App. 1992).

Pincite

Opinion

Order, Supreme Court, Bronx County (Anita Florio, J.), entered January 8, 1992, granting defendant Pritchard Industries’ motion to dismiss the complaint pursuant to CPLR 3012 (b) only to the extent of imposing $100 costs upon plaintiff, unanimously affirmed, without costs.

Consonant with the spirit and purpose of CPLR 3012 (d), the IAS Court properly excused plaintiff’s failure to serve a complaint in response to a demand therefor in the absence of any prejudice to movant (Talley v Montefiore Hosp., 167 AD2d 231). The verified complaint satisfies the requirement that an affidavit of merit must be submitted in opposition to a motion to dismiss for failing to answer a demand for a complaint (see, Salch v Paratore, 60 NY2d 851). Further, the court is not precluded, as a matter of law, from exercising its discretion to excuse a default resulting from law office failure (CPLR 2005; see, Rivera v 101 W. 12th St. Garage Corp., 111 AD2d 622), which is the excuse proffered by plaintiff. Concur — Milonas, J. P., Wallach, Asch and Rubin, JJ.

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

Order, Supreme Court, Bronx County (Anita Florio, J.), entered January 8, 1992, granting defendant Pritchard Industries’ motion to dismiss the complaint pursuant to CPLR 3012 (b) only to the extent of imposing $100 costs upon plaintiff, unanimously affirmed, without costs.

Consonant with the spirit and purpose of CPLR 3012 (d), the IAS Court properly excused plaintiff’s failure to serve a complaint in response to a demand therefor in the absence of any prejudice to movant (Talley v Montefiore Hosp., 167 AD2d 231). The verified complaint satisfies the requirement that an affidavit of merit must be submitted in opposition to a motion to dismiss for failing to answer a demand for a complaint (see, Salch v Paratore, 60 NY2d 851). Further, the court is not precluded, as a matter of law, from exercising its discretion to excuse a default resulting from law office failure (CPLR 2005; see, Rivera v 101 W. 12th St. Garage Corp., 111 AD2d 622), which is the excuse proffered by plaintiff. Concur — Milonas, J. P., Wallach, Asch and Rubin, JJ.

Cite This Page — Counsel Stack

Bluebook (online)

188 A.D.2d 369, 591 N.Y.S.2d 40, 1992 N.Y. App. Div. LEXIS 13747, Counsel Stack Legal Research, https://law.counselstack.com/opinion/lisojo-v-phillip-nyappdiv-1992.

Opinion

Related

Cite This Page — Counsel Stack