You are viewing a free summary from Descrybe.ai. For citation checking, legal issue analysis, and other advanced tools, explore our Legal Research Toolkit — not free, but close.

City of New York v. Healy/Yonkers/Atlas-Gest

Citations: 249 A.D.2d 102; 670 N.Y.S.2d 105; 1998 N.Y. App. Div. LEXIS 4051

Court: Appellate Division of the Supreme Court of the State of New York; April 16, 1998; New York; State Appellate Court

Narrative Opinion Summary

The Supreme Court of New York County issued an order on September 25, 1997, reversing the decision that denied the City of New York’s motion to extend the time to respond to Davidson Pipe Supply Co. Inc.’s notice to admit. The court found that the initial denial was improvident, as the delay in responding was minimal and due to oversight. Davidson Pipe Supply did not demonstrate any prejudice resulting from this brief delay. Consequently, the court granted the motion, allowing the City of New York 20 days from the service of the order to provide a response. The court noted that it would not address the City’s challenge to the validity of the notice to admit, as this issue had not been raised in the lower court. The decision was made unanimously by Justices Sullivan, Williams, Tom, and Andrias.

Legal Issues Addressed

Absence of Prejudice in Procedural Delays

Application: The court ruled in favor of the City of New York's request for an extension because Davidson Pipe Supply Co. Inc. did not suffer any prejudice from the brief delay.

Reasoning: Davidson Pipe Supply did not demonstrate any prejudice resulting from this brief delay.

Extension of Time to Respond to Notice to Admit

Application: The court allowed the City of New York additional time to respond due to the minimal and oversight-based nature of the delay and the absence of prejudice to the opposing party.

Reasoning: The court found that the initial denial was improvident, as the delay in responding was minimal and due to oversight.

Waiver of Unraised Issues on Appeal

Application: The court chose not to consider the City's challenge to the validity of the notice to admit because it was not raised in the lower court.

Reasoning: The court noted that it would not address the City’s challenge to the validity of the notice to admit, as this issue had not been raised in the lower court.