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.
GORDON H. DICK, PLAINTIFF–RESPONDENT, v. STATE UNIVERSITY CONSTRUCTION FUND, DEFENDANT–APPELLANT.
MEMORANDUM AND ORDER
It is hereby ORDERED that the order so appealed from is unanimously affirmed without costs.
Memorandum: Plaintiff was allegedly injured in January 2012, when he fell while working on a construction site owned by defendant, a public corporation. Approximately one year after the accident, plaintiff filed an application for leave to serve a late notice of claim (see General Municipal Law § 50–e [5] ). Defendant did not oppose the application, but sought an adjournment the day before the return date on the application. Supreme Court denied defendant's request for an adjournment and, by order dated March 8, 2013, granted plaintiff's application. Thereafter, defendant moved to vacate that order pursuant to CPLR 5015(a)(3) on the ground that, in his application, plaintiff had misrepresented that a witness to his fall was defendant's employee, thereby incorrectly imputing knowledge of the accident to defendant.
The court properly denied defendant's motion “inasmuch as the evidence establishes that defendant had knowledge of the alleged [misrepresentation] before entry of the [order]” (Chase Lincoln First Bank, N.A. v DeHaan, 89 AD3d 1476, 1477; see Matter of Livingston County Support Collection Unit v Zamiara, 309 A.D.2d 1259, 1260). Indeed, defendant's own submissions establish that it knew prior to the March 8 order that it did not have any employees at the construction site at the time of plaintiff's fall and that it knew the witness in question had not been its employee. We do not consider defendant's contention that the court should have granted its request to adjourn plaintiff's application. In the context of this appeal from an order denying a motion to vacate pursuant to CPLR 5015(a)(3), the issue before us is whether defendant was able to show that plaintiff engaged in fraud, misrepresentation, or other misconduct, of which it was unaware when the court entered its order (see Chase Lincoln First Bank, N.A., 89 AD3d at 1477; Livingston County Support Collection Unit, 309 A.D.2d at 1260).
Frances E. Cafarell
Clerk of the Court
A free source of state and federal court opinions, state laws, and the United States Code. For more information about the legal concepts addressed by these cases and statutes visit FindLaw's Learn About the Law.
Docket No: CA 14–01212
Decided: February 13, 2015
Court: Supreme Court, Appellate Division, Fourth Department.
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)