Campeas v City of New York

Annotate this Case

Download PDF

Campeas v City of New York 2012 NY Slip Op 31568(U) June 7, 2012 Supreme Court, New York County Docket Number: 114752/08 Judge: Barbara Jaffe Republished from New York State Unified Court System's E-Courts Service. Search E-Courts (http://www.nycourts.gov/ecourts) for any additional information on this case. This opinion is uncorrected and not selected for official publication. SCANNED ON 611412012 [* 1] SUPREME COURT OF THE STATE OF NEW YORK - NEW YORK P JNJ5 M B A R A JAFFE J.s. c. PRESENT: COUNTY PART 3 - Justice I MOTION DATE -vMOTION SEQ. N O . MOTION CAL. NO. were read on thls motion to/for The following papers, numbered 1 to Notice of Motion/ Order to Show Cause - Affidavits - Exhibits Answering Affidavits - Exhibits .., I 2- Replylng Affldavlta Upon the foregoirrg papers, It I ordered that this rnotlon s Dated: , 0 Check one: 1 NEW YORK COUNTY CLEHK'S OFFICE !L J. S. C. 2012 J.SG FINAL DISPOSITION Check if appropriate: <vARAJ &ON- DO NOT POST 0 SUBMIT ORDER/ JUDG. INAL DISPOSITION 0 REFERENCE SETTLE ORDER/ JUDG. [* 2] SUPREME COURT OF THE STATE OF NEW YORK COUNTY OF NEW YORK : PART 5 DAVID CAMPEAS and LYNN REYMAN, Plaintiffs, Index No. 114752/08 Motion Date: Motion Seq. No.: 3/20/12 004 -against- DECISION AND ORDER THE CITY OF NEW Y O N , and DETECTIVE ARTHUR MOLNAR, JR., Defendants. For plaintlffs: Elizabeth Eilender, Esq. Jaroslawicz & Jaros, LLC 225 Broadway, 24'hFl. New York,NY 10007 212-227-2780 For David DaPugh, ACC Michael A. Cardozo Corporation Counsel 100 Church St. New York,NY 10007 W2-788-0597 By order to show cause dated March 6,2012, defendants move pursuant to CPLR 2004, 2005, and 3 123 for a n order extending their time to respond to plaintiffs' notice to admit dated April 28,2009 and compelling plaintiffs to accept service, nuncpro tunc, of their response. Plaintiffs oppose. Defendants' counsel argues that Corporation Counsel's records do not reflect that Ct iy was ever served with the notice and that to the extent it was served, its failure to respond resulted from law ofice failure, and that plaintiffs cannot show prejudice resulting from the delay. Defendants also object to one of the requested admissions on the ground that it relates to an ultimate issue in the action. (Affirmation of David DePugh, ACC, dated Mar. 1, 2012). Plaintiffs observe that City was served with the notice approximately three years ago, and [* 3] object to an extension of time on the grounds that the parties engaged in years of discovery based in part on the admissions contained in the notice and that defendants three-year delay in serving a response is prejudicial. (Affirmation of Elizabeth Eilender, Esq., dated Mar. 9, 2012). Pursuant to CPLR 3 123(a), upon service of a notice to admit: Each of the matters of which an admission is requested shall be deemed admitted unless within twenty days after service thereof or within such further time as the court may allow, the party to whom the request is directed serves upon the party requesting the admission a sworn statement either denying specifically the matters of which an admission is requested or setting forth in detail the reasons why he cannot truthfully either admit or deny those matters. Pursuant to CPLR 3 123(b), the court may at any time permit a party TO??? withdraw any admission upon such terms as may be just. A notice to admit should be used only for disposing of uncontroverted questions of fact or those that are easily provable, and not for the purpose of compelling admission of fundamental and material issues or ultimate facts that can only be resolved after a full trial. (The Hawthorne Group, LLC v RRE Ventures, 7 AD3d 320 [ 1 Dept 20041). Here, City s explanation that law ofice failure caused its three-year delay in responding to the notice is conclusory and vague. However, plaintiffs contention that City s failure to respond to the notice has prejudiced them is also conclusory and vague, and, in any event, the notice improperly requested City s admission to an ultimate issue in this matter, namely, whether Molnar had physical contact with and/or assaulted plaintiff Campeas. (See Rosario v City of New York, 261 AD2d 380 [2d Dept 19991 [court properly excused City s failure to respond to notice to admit as allegations therein related to police officers involvement in incident at issue, which was at heart of controversy]; Vurduk v Eagle Ins. Co., 200 AD2d 5 18 [1 Dept 19941 [court was 2 [* 4] within discretion in excusing defendant s default in failing to respond to notice to admit due to law office failure absent showing of prejudice]; Howlun v Rosol, 139 AD2d 799 [3d Dept 19881 [although defendants did not respond to notice, court had discretion to review propriety of notice]; Clark v Prudential Ins. Co. ofArn. 18 AD2d 1090 [2d Dept 19631 [permitting plaintiff to respond to notice although served almost two years earlier as defendant not substantially prejudiced by delay, which was caused by attorney oversight]; but see Mutter of Civ. Serv. Bur A m . , et al. v City of New York, 83 AD2d 815 [18t Dept 19811 [denying City s motion to vacate default in failing to respond to notice to admit for two years]). Indeed, a party has no obligation to respond to an improper notice to admit. (See Nacherlilla v Prospect Park Alliance, Inc., 88 AD3d 770 [2d Dept 201I] [notice to admit improper as-it sought admission as to defendant s ownership and control of premises, which was at heart of controversy and in substantial dispute as defendant had denied ownership in answer]; Meadowbrook-Richman, Inc. v Cicchiello, 273 AD2d 6 [ 1 Dept 20001 [notice to admit b improperly requested defendant to concede disputed matters]; Riner v Texaco, Inc., 222 AD2d 571 [2d Dept 19953 [excusing defendant s failure to respond to notice which requested that it admit ownership and control of property at issue]; Orellanu v City ofNew York, 203 AD2d 542 [2d Dept 19941 [City not required to respond to notice which sought admission of contested issues and not clear-cut and undisputed factual matters]; see also Morreale v Serrano, 67 AD3d 655 [2d Dept 20091 [plaintiff could not rely on defendant s response to notice to admit as it improperly sought admissions as to facts at issue]). Accordingly, it is hereby ORDERED, that defendants motion is granted to the extent Q f compelling plaintiffs to [* 5] accept, nuncpro tunc, defendants' response to the notice to admit annexed to the moving papers. ENTER: DATED: J.S.C. Junev, 20 12 New York, New York '3uN 0 7 2812 JUN z 4 2012 NEW YORK COUAJV CLERRS OFFICE 4

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.