Gantt v. North Shore-LIJ Health System
This text of 140 A.D.3d 418 (Gantt v. North Shore-LIJ Health System) 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.
Opinion
Order, Supreme Court, New York County (Manuel J. Mendez, J.), entered on or about January 23, 2015, which, to the extent appealed from, denied plaintiff’s motion for a default judgment against defendants, and order, same court and Justice, entered April 21, 2015, which, to the extent appealed from, denied plaintiff’s motion to renew, and deemed defendants’ answer served, unanimously affirmed, with costs.
Plaintiff satisfied the requirements of CPLR 3215 (f) for a default judgment by providing proof of service of the summons and complaint and proof of the facts constituting the claim, the default and the amount due. However, we decline to disturb the motion court’s exercise of its broad discretion in finding sufficient defendants’ excuse for their delay in answering the complaint (Cirillo v Macy’s, Inc., 61 AD3d 538, 540 [1st Dept 2009]), i.e., the parties’ settlement discussions (see Polanco v Scott, 41 AD3d 182 [1st Dept 2007]; Finkelstein v East 65th St. Laundromat, 215 AD2d 178 [1st Dept 1995]).
We note, contrary to the motion court, that any irregularity in the affidavit of nonmilitary service submitted on plaintiff’s motion for a default judgment did not rise to the level of a jurisdictional defect, since defendant Hilerio never made any pretense of either being on active military duty or being a military dependent at the time of her default (see Department of Hous. Preserv. & Dev. of City of N.Y. v West 129th St. Realty Corp., 9 Misc 3d 61 [App Term, 1st Dept 2005]).
The motion court properly deemed defendants’ answer *419 served, in light of defendants’ reasonable excuse for the delay, the relatively short delay, plaintiff’s failure to demonstrate prejudice, and the strong preference in this State for deciding matters on the merits.
We have considered plaintiff’s remaining contentions and find them unavailing.
Free access — add to your briefcase to read the full text and ask questions with AI
Related
Cite This Page — Counsel Stack
140 A.D.3d 418, 31 N.Y.S.3d 864, Counsel Stack Legal Research, https://law.counselstack.com/opinion/gantt-v-north-shore-lij-health-system-nyappdiv-2016.