Williams v City of New York

Annotate this Case
Williams v City of New York 2010 NY Slip Op 02670 [71 AD3d 605] March 30, 2010 Appellate Division, First Department Published by New York State Law Reporting Bureau pursuant to Judiciary Law § 431. As corrected through Wednesday, April 28, 2010

Anderson Williams et al., Appellants,
v
City of New York et al., Defendants, and New York City Transit Authority et al., Respondents.

—[*1] Rosenbaum & Rosenbaum, P.C., New York (Andrew B. Roth of counsel), for appellants.

Wallace D. Gossett, Brooklyn (Anita Isola of counsel), for New York City Transit Authority and Manhattan and Bronx Surface Transit Operating Authority, respondents.

Rafter and Associates, PLLC, New York (Thomas J. Moran of counsel), for DeMicco Brothers, Inc., respondent.

Order, Supreme Court, Bronx County (Larry Schachner, J.), entered June 9, 2009, to the extent appealed from, as limited by the briefs, which upon granting plaintiffs' motion to vacate orders entered on default, also granted the motions of defendants-respondents New York City Transit Authority and Manhattan and Bronx Surface Transit Authority, and DeMicco Brothers, Inc. for summary judgment dismissing the complaint on the merits as against those defendants, unanimously reversed, on the law, without costs, the motions for summary judgment dismissal denied, the complaint reinstated, and the matter remanded for a determination of the summary judgment motions on the merits after briefing of the issue by plaintiffs.

The motion court erred in granting summary judgment dismissal on the merits inasmuch as the showing of merit for vacatur of the default orders was different than the more extensive showing necessary to defeat summary judgment, the parties had not charted a course for summary judgment in addressing plaintiffs' motion to vacate the orders entered on default, and plaintiffs were prejudiced insofar as their merits showing was limited to the issue of vacatur (see [*2]Goodsill v Middleburgh Little League, 213 AD2d 843 [1995]). Consequently, we remand as indicated. Concur—Mazzarelli, J.P., Sweeny, Nardelli, Acosta and Manzanet-Daniels, JJ.

Some case metadata and case summaries were written with the help of AI, which can produce inaccuracies. You should read the full case before relying on it for legal research purposes.

This site is protected by reCAPTCHA and the Google Privacy Policy and Terms of Service apply.