Cleary v. East Syracuse-Minoa Central School District

Appellate Division of the Supreme Court of New York

Cleary v. East Syracuse-Minoa Central School District

248 A.D.2d 1005, 670 N.Y.S.2d 145, 1998 N.Y. App. Div. LEXIS 3089

Appellate Division of the Supreme Court of the State of New York·Decided March 13, 1998·Published·Cited by 8 cases

Opinion

—Order unanimously affirmed without costs. Memorandum: Supreme Court did not abuse its discretion in denying the motion of plaintiff for a default judgment and granting the cross motion of defendant Jefferson-Lewis-Herkimer-HamiltonOneida BOCES (BOCES) to compel plaintiff to accept its late answer (see, CPLR 3012 [d]; Goracy v Burns, Brooks & McNeil, 155 AD2d 256; see also, Better v Town of Schodack, 169 AD2d 965). Public policy favors the resolution of a case on the merits, and a court has broad discretion to grant relief from a pleading default if there is a showing of merit to the defense, a reasonable excuse for the delay and it appears that the delay did not prejudice the other party (see, Lichtman v Sears, Roebuck & Co., 236 AD2d 373; Davies v Contel of N. Y., 155 AD2d 809, 810). The affidavit submitted by BOCES establishes a meritorious defense and that the default was caused by a “bureaucratic error [that] was not willful” (Curtis v Town of Clinton, 138 AD2d 445). Further, plaintiff has suffered no demonstrable prejudice from the four-month delay.

Finally, the contention of BOCES that it was not properly served is without merit (see, Best v City of New York, 101 AD2d 847; Mariano v Steinberg, 87 AD2d 606). (Appeal from Order of Supreme Court, Onondaga County, Mordue, J. — Default Judgment.)

Present — Pine, J. P., Wisner, Callahan, Boehm and Fallon, JJ.

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

—Order unanimously affirmed without costs. Memorandum: Supreme Court did not abuse its discretion in denying the motion of plaintiff for a default judgment and granting the cross motion of defendant Jefferson-Lewis-Herkimer-HamiltonOneida BOCES (BOCES) to compel plaintiff to accept its late answer (see, CPLR 3012 [d]; Goracy v Burns, Brooks & McNeil, 155 AD2d 256; see also, Better v Town of Schodack, 169 AD2d 965). Public policy favors the resolution of a case on the merits, and a court has broad discretion to grant relief from a pleading default if there is a showing of merit to the defense, a reasonable excuse for the delay and it appears that the delay did not prejudice the other party (see, Lichtman v Sears, Roebuck & Co., 236 AD2d 373; Davies v Contel of N. Y., 155 AD2d 809, 810). The affidavit submitted by BOCES establishes a meritorious defense and that the default was caused by a “bureaucratic error [that] was not willful” (Curtis v Town of Clinton, 138 AD2d 445). Further, plaintiff has suffered no demonstrable prejudice from the four-month delay.

Finally, the contention of BOCES that it was not properly served is without merit (see, Best v City of New York, 101 AD2d 847; Mariano v Steinberg, 87 AD2d 606). (Appeal from Order of Supreme Court, Onondaga County, Mordue, J. — Default Judgment.)

Present — Pine, J. P., Wisner, Callahan, Boehm and Fallon, JJ.

Cleary v. East Syracuse-Minoa Central School District, 248 A.D.2d 1005, 670 N.Y.S.2d 145, 1998 N.Y. App. Div. LEXIS 3089 (N.Y. Ct. App. 1998).

Pincite

248 A.D.2d 1005 (Cleary v. East Syracuse-Minoa Central School District) — published by Counsel Stack Legal Research, free access to 12M+ legal documents.

Opinion

Related