Learn About the Law
Get help with your legal needs
FindLaw’s Learn About the Law features thousands of informational articles to help you understand your options. And if you’re ready to hire an attorney, find one in your area who can help.
Angela KELLY, Plaintiff–Appellant, v. The CITY OF NEW YORK et al., Defendants–Respondents.
Order, Supreme Court, New York County (Dakota D. Ramseur, J.), entered on or about July 13, 2022, which, insofar as appealed from as limited by the briefs, granted defendants’ motion to dismiss the complaint in part and denied plaintiff's cross-motion for a default judgment, unanimously modified, on the law, to vacate the determination on the motion to dismiss and to remand it to the motion court for further consideration in accordance with our decision, and otherwise affirmed, without costs.
A default judgment is not warranted as against defendants (CPLR 3012[d]; see generally Emigrant Bank v. Rosabianca, 156 A.D.3d 468, 472–473, 67 N.Y.S.3d 175 [1st Dept. 2017]). Defendants demonstrated a reasonable excuse for the delay in answering or filing a pre-answer motion to dismiss – i.e., complications relating to the Covid–19 pandemic. In addition, plaintiff does not dispute that defendants have a meritorious defense (see Emigrant Bank, 156 A.D.3d at 473, 67 N.Y.S.3d 175; Marine v. Montefiore Health Sys., Inc., 129 A.D.3d 428, 429, 9 N.Y.S.3d 580 [1st Dept. 2015]). For the same reasons, defendants’ motion to dismiss was properly considered even though it was untimely (see e.g. Felix v. Thomas R. Stachecki Gen. Contr., LLC, 107 A.D.3d 664, 666, 966 N.Y.S.2d 494 [2d Dept. 2013]; Arrington v. Bronx Jean Co., Inc., 76 A.D.3d 461, 462, 906 N.Y.S.2d 266 [1st Dept. 2010]).
The decretal paragraph of the motion court decision does not specify which portions of the defendants’ motion to dismiss the court intended to deny. Moreover, it does not specify what action the court intended to take as to the enumerated paragraphs. Assuming from the context that the court intended to strike the enumerated paragraphs, we vacate that holding as the defendants did not move to strike. Moreover, the CPLR does not authorize a court to strike factual allegations except when they are scandalous or prejudicial (CPLR 3024([b])), which was not alleged here. We remand for further consideration of the motion to dismiss, based on all of the factual allegations in the complaint.
Thank you for your feedback!
As the largest network of trusted legal brands, we help firms build authority across the platforms consumers and AI systems rely on most. Our network helps attorneys strengthen visibility, credibility, and preference where legal decisions begin.
Docket No: 1088
Decided: November 28, 2023
Court: Supreme Court, Appellate Division, First Department, New York.
Search our directory by legal issue
Enter information in one or both fields (Required)
Harness the power of our directory with your own profile. Select the button below to sign up.
Learn more about FindLaw’s newsletters, including our terms of use and privacy policy.
Get help with your legal needs
FindLaw’s Learn About the Law features thousands of informational articles to help you understand your options. And if you’re ready to hire an attorney, find one in your area who can help.
Search our directory by legal issue
Enter information in one or both fields (Required)