From Casetext: Smarter Legal Research

Lisojo v. Phillip

Appellate Division of the Supreme Court of New York, First Department
Dec 10, 1992
188 A.D.2d 369 (N.Y. App. Div. 1992)

Opinion

December 10, 1992

Appeal from the Supreme Court, Bronx County (Anita Florio, J.).


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 A.D.2d 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 N.Y.2d 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 A.D.2d 622), which is the excuse proffered by plaintiff.

Concur — Milonas, J.P., Wallach, Asch and Rubin, JJ.


Summaries of

Lisojo v. Phillip

Appellate Division of the Supreme Court of New York, First Department
Dec 10, 1992
188 A.D.2d 369 (N.Y. App. Div. 1992)
Case details for

Lisojo v. Phillip

Case Details

Full title:MARIANO LISOJO, Respondent, v. D'AVILAR PHILLIP et al., Defendants, and…

Court:Appellate Division of the Supreme Court of New York, First Department

Date published: Dec 10, 1992

Citations

188 A.D.2d 369 (N.Y. App. Div. 1992)
591 N.Y.S.2d 40

Citing Cases

Lebron v. New York City Housing Authority

The motion to restore was properly treated as one to vacate a CPLR 3404 automatic dismissal ( see, Syndicate…

Hernandez v. Chaparro

The motion court providently exercised its discretion, pursuant to CPLR 3012, in denying the motion and…