RIVERA v. CITY OF NEW YORK (2026)

Order, Supreme Court, Bronx County (Mitchell J. Danziger, J.), entered on or about January 29, 2026, which, in effect, denied plaintiff's motion to strike defendant's answer, unanimously affirmed, without costs.

Plaintiff was injured when he was thrown from his motorcycle while traveling on the Cross Bronx Expressway.  According to plaintiff, the incident occurred because of a dangerous condition on the roadway, which was defective as a result of negligent maintenance by defendant.

Given the strong preference for deciding matters on their merits, Supreme Court did not improvidently exercise its discretion by accepting defendant's late opposition to plaintiff's motion (see Elizabeth Canal, LLC v. Structure Tone Global Servs., Inc., 236 A.D.3d 582, 583, 231 N.Y.S.3d 30 [1st Dept. 2025] ).  In addition, plaintiff has not shown that he suffered any prejudice from acceptance of the late submission (see Prato v. Arzt, 79 A.D.3d 622, 623, 912 N.Y.S.2d 881 [1st Dept. 2010];  Dinnocenzo v Jordache Enters., 213 A.D.3d 219, 219, 624 N.Y.S.2d 6 [1st Dept. 1995] ).

For the same reasons, Supreme Court did not abuse its discretion in denying plaintiff's motion to strike defendant's answer.  Although defendant was inexplicably lax in providing discovery, it is undisputed that it did eventually provide relevant documents concerning the roadway at issue and produced a witness for deposition.