A & C Construction Inc. v. Flanagan

34 A.D.3d 510, 823 N.Y.S.2d 682
CourtAppellate Division of the Supreme Court of the State of New York
DecidedNovember 14, 2006
StatusPublished
Cited by6 cases

This text of 34 A.D.3d 510 (A & C Construction Inc. v. Flanagan) is published on Counsel Stack Legal Research, covering Appellate Division of the Supreme Court of the State of New York primary law. Counsel Stack provides free access to over 12 million legal documents including statutes, case law, regulations, and constitutions.

Bluebook
A & C Construction Inc. v. Flanagan, 34 A.D.3d 510, 823 N.Y.S.2d 682 (N.Y. Ct. App. 2006).

Opinion

In an action to recover damages for legal malpractice, the plaintiff appeals from an order of the Supreme Court, Queens County (Kitzes, J), dated September 26, 2005, which denied its motion pursuant to CPLR 3215 (a) for leave to enter a judgment on the issue of liability against the defendants upon their failure to appear or answer the complaint, and granted the defendants’ application for leave to serve a late answer.

Ordered that the order is affirmed, with costs.

The Supreme Court providently exercised its discretion in denying the plaintiff’s motion for leave to enter judgment against the defendants pursuant to CPLR 3215 (a). The defendants demonstrated both a reasonable excuse for their default and a potentially meritorious defense (see CPLR 2005, 5015 [a] [1]; Juseinoski v Board of Educ. of City of N.Y., 15 AD3d 353 [2005]). Furthermore, in light of the lack of prejudice to the plaintiff from the delay, the existence of potentially meritorious defenses, the strong public policy to resolve actions on their merits, and the defendants’ lack of willfulness, the Supreme Court properly vacated the default and granted the defendants’ application for leave to serve a late answer (see New York & Presbyt. Hosp. v American Home Assur. Co., 28 AD3d 442 [2006]; New York & Presbyt. Hosp. v Auto One Ins. Co., 28 AD3d 441 [2006]; Nunez v Bertram, 24 AD3d 523 [2005]; Yonkers Rib House, Inc. v 1789 Cent. Park Corp., 19 AD3d 687 [2005]).

The plaintiff’s remaining contentions are without merit. Miller, J.E, Santucci, Goldstein, Skelos and Lunn, JJ., concur.

Free access — add to your briefcase to read the full text and ask questions with AI

Related

Weinstein v. Schacht
98 A.D.3d 1106 (Appellate Division of the Supreme Court of New York, 2012)
Wiesel v. Friends Exhaust Systems, Inc.
71 A.D.3d 1006 (Appellate Division of the Supreme Court of New York, 2010)
Lawrence v. Palmer
59 A.D.3d 394 (Appellate Division of the Supreme Court of New York, 2009)
Falla v. Keel Holdings, LLC
50 A.D.3d 844 (Appellate Division of the Supreme Court of New York, 2008)
Mele v. Okubo
36 A.D.3d 599 (Appellate Division of the Supreme Court of New York, 2007)

Cite This Page — Counsel Stack

Bluebook (online)
34 A.D.3d 510, 823 N.Y.S.2d 682, Counsel Stack Legal Research, https://law.counselstack.com/opinion/a-c-construction-inc-v-flanagan-nyappdiv-2006.