Theresa Carrano v. City New York

It appears that the defendant city's 28-day delay in serving an answer was due to inadvertence caused by the heavy press of work and that the Statute of Limitations for the commencement of a tort action against the city (General Municipal Law, § 50-i) constitutes a meritorious defense to the action. It does not appear that plaintiff suffered the impairment of a right or any other prejudice in law by reason of the delay. In the circumstances, the city's motion to vacate its default should have been granted unconditionally (Bermudez v. City of New York, 22 A.D.2d 865; Hirsch v. Flick, 17 A.D.2d 961; Karp v. Antelman, 285 App. Div. 955; Sears v. Hetfield, 216 App. Div. 767). Disposition Order reversed insofar as appealed from, without costs, and motion granted unconditionally.