New York Supreme and/or Appellate Courts Appellate Division, First Department
May 29, 2012
LUCIA HERNANDEZ, AS ADMINISTRATRIX FOR SONIA GARCIA, ETC., ET AL., PLAINTIFFS-RESPONDENTS,
ALEX CHAPARRO, DEFENDANT, THE CITY OF NEW YORK, ET AL., DEFENDANTS-APPELLANTS.
Hernandez v Chaparro
Decided on May 29, 2012
Published by New York State Law Reporting Bureau pursuant to Judiciary Law § 431.
This opinion is uncorrected and subject to revision before publication in the Official Reports.
Friedman, J.P., Sweeny, Renwick, Freedman, Abdus-Salaam, JJ.
Order, Supreme Court, New York County (Geoffrey D. Wright, J.), entered March 4, 2011, which denied defendants-appellants' motion to dismiss the complaint as untimely served and granted plaintiff's cross motion for leave to serve a late verified complaint, unanimously affirmed, without costs.
The motion court providently exercised its discretion, pursuant to CPLR 3012, in denying the motion and granting the cross motion (see Lisojo v Phillip, 188 AD2d 369, 369 ). In light of the complexity of the guardianship and estate proceedings preceding service of the complaint, there appears to be a reasonable excuse for the delay (id.). Further, considering plaintiff's handicap as an administrator and guardian (see Santana v Prospect Hosp., 84 AD2d 714, 714 ), as well as the lack of discovery from defendants, plaintiff's affidavit of merit contained "evidentiary facts sufficient to establish a prima facie case" (Kel Mgt. Corp. v Rogers & Wells, 64 NY2d 904, 905 ). Moreover, defendants' failure to show any prejudice strongly favors excuse of plaintiff's failure to timely serve the complaint (Lisojo, 188 AD2d at 369; Santana, 84 AD2d at 714-715).
THIS CONSTITUTES THE DECISION AND ORDER OF THE SUPREME COURT, APPELLATE DIVISION, FIRST DEPARTMENT.
ENTERED: MAY 29, 2012
© 1992-2012 VersusLaw Inc.