Gamiel v. Sulivan & Liapakis, P. C.

Appellate Division of the Supreme Court of New York

Gamiel v. Sulivan & Liapakis, P. C.

254 A.D.2d 96, 679 N.Y.S.2d 282, 1998 N.Y. App. Div. LEXIS 10686

Appellate Division of the Supreme Court of the State of New York·Decided October 13, 1998·Published·Cited by 1 cases

Opinion

Orders, Supreme Court, New York County (Diane Lebedeff, J.), both entered February 6, 1998, which, in an action for legal malpractice, denied plaintiffs motion for a default judgment and for 22 NYCRR part 130 sanctions, and granted defendant’s cross motion to serve an amended answer, unanimously affirmed, without costs.

Defendant’s default in serving an answer was properly excused where, at the outset, defendant advised plaintiff that it was having difficulty locating its file in the underlying medical malpractice action, which had concluded almost a year and a half earlier (Gamiel v University Hosp., 216 AD2d 80, lv dismissed 87 NY2d 911), defendant shows a meritorious defense, and plaintiff fails to show prejudice as a result of the two and a half-month delay (see, Elkman v Southgate Owners Corp., 243 AD2d 356). We have considered plaintiffs argument that the answer defendant served after plaintiff had moved for a default judgment was frivolous and find it to be without merit. Concur — Lerner, P. J., Sullivan, Mazzarelli, Andrias and Saxe, JJ.

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

Orders, Supreme Court, New York County (Diane Lebedeff, J.), both entered February 6, 1998, which, in an action for legal malpractice, denied plaintiffs motion for a default judgment and for 22 NYCRR part 130 sanctions, and granted defendant’s cross motion to serve an amended answer, unanimously affirmed, without costs.

Defendant’s default in serving an answer was properly excused where, at the outset, defendant advised plaintiff that it was having difficulty locating its file in the underlying medical malpractice action, which had concluded almost a year and a half earlier (Gamiel v University Hosp., 216 AD2d 80, lv dismissed 87 NY2d 911), defendant shows a meritorious defense, and plaintiff fails to show prejudice as a result of the two and a half-month delay (see, Elkman v Southgate Owners Corp., 243 AD2d 356). We have considered plaintiffs argument that the answer defendant served after plaintiff had moved for a default judgment was frivolous and find it to be without merit. Concur — Lerner, P. J., Sullivan, Mazzarelli, Andrias and Saxe, JJ.

Gamiel v. Sulivan & Liapakis, P. C., 254 A.D.2d 96, 679 N.Y.S.2d 282, 1998 N.Y. App. Div. LEXIS 10686 (N.Y. Ct. App. 1998).

Pincite

254 A.D.2d 96 (Gamiel v. Sulivan & Liapakis, P. C.) — published by Counsel Stack Legal Research, free access to 12M+ legal documents.

Opinion

Related