Hernandez v Chaparro

Annotate this Case
Hernandez v Chaparro 2012 NY Slip Op 04110 Decided on May 29, 2012 Appellate Division, First Department Published by New York State Law Reporting Bureau pursuant to Judiciary Law ยง 431. This opinion is uncorrected and subject to revision before publication in the Official Reports.

Decided on May 29, 2012
Friedman, J.P., Sweeny, Renwick, Freedman, Abdus-Salaam, JJ.
7785N 114003/08

[*1]Lucia Hernandez, as Administratrix for Sonia Garcia, etc., et al., Plaintiffs-Respondents,

v

Alex Chaparro, Defendant, The City of New York, et al., Defendants-Appellants.




Michael A. Cardozo, Corporation Counsel, New York (Julian L.
Kalkstein of counsel), for appellants.
Edward R. Young & Associates, P.C., West Babylon (Seth I.
Fields of counsel), for respondents.

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 [1992]). 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 [1981]), 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 [1985]). 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

CLERK

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.