Perez v. City of N.Y.

• Court: New York Supreme Court — Appellate Division
• Citation: Perez v. City of N.Y., 2014 NY Slip Op 578, 113 A.D.3d 570, 979 N.Y.S.2d 520 (N.Y. App. Div. 2014)
• Decision Date: 30 January 2014
• Parties: Zacarias PEREZ, et al., Plaintiffs–Appellants, v. The CITY OF NEW YORK, et al., Defendants–Respondents.

113 A.D.3d 570

979 N.Y.S.2d 520

2014 N.Y. Slip Op. 00578

Zacarias PEREZ, et al., Plaintiffs–Appellants,

v.The CITY OF NEW YORK, et al., Defendants–Respondents.

Supreme Court, Appellate Division, First Department, New York.

Jan. 30, 2014.

Teperman & Teperman, LLC, New York (Jeffrey Lessoff of counsel), for appellants.

Michael A. Cardozo, Corporation Counsel, New York (Janet L. Zaleon of counsel), for respondents.

Order, Supreme Court, Bronx County (Larry S. Schachner, J.), entered April 19, 2012, which granted defendants' motion to dismiss the complaint, unanimously affirmed, without costs.

The motion court providently exercised its discretion in dismissing the complaint on the grounds of laches ( see Garcia v. City of New York, 72 A.D.3d 505, 507, 900 N.Y.S.2d 17 [1st Dept.2010], appeal dismissed15 N.Y.3d 918, 913 N.Y.S.2d 644, 939 N.E.2d 810 [2010]; Reynolds v. Snow, 10 A.D.2d 101, 111, 197 N.Y.S.2d 590 [1st Dept.1960], affd. 8 N.Y.2d 899, 204 N.Y.S.2d 146, 168 N.E.2d 822 [1960] ). The record demonstrates that the inordinate delays in this case, arising from a 1984 motor vehicle accident and commenced 28 years ago, are attributable to plaintiffs and their counsel, and that due to the passage of time, defendants' ability to mount a defense has been significantly prejudiced ( see Saratoga County Chamber of Commerce v. Pataki, 100 N.Y.2d 801, 816, 766 N.Y.S.2d 654, 798 N.E.2d 1047 [2003], cert. denied540 U.S. 1017, 124 S.Ct. 570, 157 L.Ed.2d 430 [2003]; Matter of Linker, 23 A.D.3d 186, 189, 803 N.Y.S.2d 534 [1st Dept.2005] ).

GONZALEZ, P.J., FRIEDMAN, RENWICK, FREEDMAN, RICHTER, JJ., concur.