Lopez v. City of New York

Appellate Division of the Supreme Court of New York

Lopez v. City of New York

179 A.D.2d 388, 578 N.Y.S.2d 414, 1992 N.Y. App. Div. LEXIS 124

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

DecidedJanuary 9, 1992

StatusPublished

Cited by3 cases

This text of 179 A.D.2d 388 (Lopez v. City of New York) 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

Lopez v. City of New York, 179 A.D.2d 388, 578 N.Y.S.2d 414, 1992 N.Y. App. Div. LEXIS 124 (N.Y. Ct. App. 1992).

Pincite

Opinion

We assume, in plaintiff’s favor, that his motion for a default [389]*389judgment was made within one year of defendants’ defaults, as required by CPLR 3215 (c), but nevertheless affirm denial of the motion since defendants demonstrated a reasonable excuse for their defaults, namely, law office failure (CPLR 2005), and a meritorious defense, namely that the complaint may be time-barred because the notices of claim, although served within 90 days after the plaintiff was notified that his position had been terminated were not served within 90 days after the date of the disputed letter giving rise to the action. We note that plaintiff does not claim prejudice as a result of the delay (see, Pieretti v Flair DéArt, 99 AD2d 980, 981). Concur — Sullivan, J. P., Carro, Milonas, Asch and Rubin, JJ.

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

We assume, in plaintiff’s favor, that his motion for a default [389]*389judgment was made within one year of defendants’ defaults, as required by CPLR 3215 (c), but nevertheless affirm denial of the motion since defendants demonstrated a reasonable excuse for their defaults, namely, law office failure (CPLR 2005), and a meritorious defense, namely that the complaint may be time-barred because the notices of claim, although served within 90 days after the plaintiff was notified that his position had been terminated were not served within 90 days after the date of the disputed letter giving rise to the action. We note that plaintiff does not claim prejudice as a result of the delay (see, Pieretti v Flair DéArt, 99 AD2d 980, 981). Concur — Sullivan, J. P., Carro, Milonas, Asch and Rubin, JJ.

Cite This Page — Counsel Stack

Bluebook (online)

179 A.D.2d 388, 578 N.Y.S.2d 414, 1992 N.Y. App. Div. LEXIS 124, Counsel Stack Legal Research, https://law.counselstack.com/opinion/lopez-v-city-of-new-york-nyappdiv-1992.

Opinion

Related

Cite This Page — Counsel Stack