Evans v. Sandoval

Appellate Division of the Supreme Court of New York

Evans v. Sandoval

121 A.D.3d 1037, 994 N.Y.S.2d 314

CourtAppellate Division of the Supreme Court of the State of New York

DecidedOctober 29, 2014

Docket2014-01464

StatusPublished

Cited by5 cases

This text of 121 A.D.3d 1037 (Evans v. Sandoval) 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

Evans v. Sandoval, 121 A.D.3d 1037, 994 N.Y.S.2d 314 (N.Y. Ct. App. 2014).

Pincite

Opinion

In an action to recover damages for medical malpractice, the plaintiff appeals from an order of the Supreme Court, Kings County (Dabiri, J.), dated October 25, 2013, which denied her motion pursuant to CPLR 3215 for leave to enter a judgment on the issue of liability against the defendant Lloy Anderson upon her failure to appear or answer and granted the cross motion of the defendant Lloy Anderson to deem her late answer timely served nunc pro tunc.

Ordered that the order is affirmed, with costs.

In light of the lack of prejudice to the plaintiff resulting from the respondent’s short delay in answering the complaint, the lack of willfulness on the part of the respondent, the existence of a potentially meritorious defense, and the public policy favoring the resolution of cases on the merits, the Supreme Court providently exercised its discretion in denying the plaintiff’s motion pursuant to CPLR 3215 for leave to enter a default judgment against the respondent and in granting the respondent’s cross motion to deem her late answer timely served nunc pro tunc (see CPLR 2004, 3012 [d]; Hutchinson v New York City *1038 Health & Hosps. Corp., 118 AD3d 945, 945 [2014]; Klein v Yeshiva M’kor Chaim, 116 AD3d 672, 672 [2014]; PDK Labs, Inc. v G.M.G. Trans W. Corp., 101 AD3d 970, 972 [2012]).

Dillon, J.E, Dickerson, Roman and Sgroi, JJ., concur.

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

In an action to recover damages for medical malpractice, the plaintiff appeals from an order of the Supreme Court, Kings County (Dabiri, J.), dated October 25, 2013, which denied her motion pursuant to CPLR 3215 for leave to enter a judgment on the issue of liability against the defendant Lloy Anderson upon her failure to appear or answer and granted the cross motion of the defendant Lloy Anderson to deem her late answer timely served nunc pro tunc.

Ordered that the order is affirmed, with costs.

In light of the lack of prejudice to the plaintiff resulting from the respondent’s short delay in answering the complaint, the lack of willfulness on the part of the respondent, the existence of a potentially meritorious defense, and the public policy favoring the resolution of cases on the merits, the Supreme Court providently exercised its discretion in denying the plaintiff’s motion pursuant to CPLR 3215 for leave to enter a default judgment against the respondent and in granting the respondent’s cross motion to deem her late answer timely served nunc pro tunc (see CPLR 2004, 3012 [d]; Hutchinson v New York City *1038 Health & Hosps. Corp., 118 AD3d 945, 945 [2014]; Klein v Yeshiva M’kor Chaim, 116 AD3d 672, 672 [2014]; PDK Labs, Inc. v G.M.G. Trans W. Corp., 101 AD3d 970, 972 [2012]).

Dillon, J.E, Dickerson, Roman and Sgroi, JJ., concur.

Cite This Page — Counsel Stack

Bluebook (online)

121 A.D.3d 1037, 994 N.Y.S.2d 314, Counsel Stack Legal Research, https://law.counselstack.com/opinion/evans-v-sandoval-nyappdiv-2014.

Opinion

Related

Cite This Page — Counsel Stack