Gantt v. North Shore-LIJ Health System

140 A.D.3d 418, 31 N.Y.S.3d 864
CourtAppellate Division of the Supreme Court of the State of New York
DecidedJune 2, 2016
Docket159079/14 1365N 1364
StatusPublished
Cited by23 cases

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.

Bluebook
Gantt v. North Shore-LIJ Health System, 140 A.D.3d 418, 31 N.Y.S.3d 864 (N.Y. Ct. App. 2016).

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.

Concur — Acosta, J.P., Saxe, Gische, Web-ber and Kahn, JJ.

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

Related

Boutov v. Hanson
2026 NY Slip Op 31058(U) (New York Supreme Court, New York County, 2026)
Corvera v. Ritz
2026 NY Slip Op 30755(U) (New York Supreme Court, New York County, 2026)
Goleret v. 140 W. 132nd St., LLC
2025 NY Slip Op 51783(U) (Appellate Terms of the Supreme Court of New York, 2025)
Tri-Rail Designers & Bldrs., Inc. v. Concrete Superstructures, Inc.
2025 NY Slip Op 06209 (Appellate Division of the Supreme Court of New York, 2025)
City of New York v. Bong Hee Su
2025 NY Slip Op 31882(U) (New York Supreme Court, New York County, 2025)
Stravitz v. City of New York
2025 NY Slip Op 31313(U) (New York Supreme Court, New York County, 2025)
Ordaz v. Paul Maslin Co. LLC
2025 NY Slip Op 31310(U) (New York Supreme Court, New York County, 2025)
De Herrera v. Daza
2025 NY Slip Op 30851(U) (New York Supreme Court, Kings County, 2025)
Johnson v. 917 Mgt. Corp.
2025 NY Slip Op 50202(U) (Appellate Terms of the Supreme Court of New York, 2025)
Deepdale Specialty Fin. I LLC v. Harvard Med. Supplies LLC
2024 NY Slip Op 34547(U) (New York Supreme Court, New York County, 2024)
Garcia-Guzman v. 200 E. 16th St. Hous. Corp.
2024 NY Slip Op 34345(U) (New York Supreme Court, New York County, 2024)
Pentagram Design, Inc. v. Change of Heart Clothing Corp.
2024 NY Slip Op 51396(U) (Appellate Terms of the Supreme Court of New York, 2024)
Timoyanis v. Xuanli Tang
2024 NY Slip Op 32303(U) (New York Supreme Court, New York County, 2024)
Hereford Ins. Co. v. Physio Care Physical Therapy, PC
2024 NY Slip Op 24083 (New York Supreme Court, New York County, 2024)
Bigio v. Gooding
2023 NY Slip Op 00806 (Appellate Division of the Supreme Court of New York, 2023)
Matter of Petre v. Lucia
2022 NY Slip Op 02965 (Appellate Division of the Supreme Court of New York, 2022)
Gordon Law Firm, P.C. v. Premier DNA Corp.
205 A.D.3d 416 (Appellate Division of the Supreme Court of New York, 2022)
Hertz Vehicles, LLC v. Mollo
2019 NY Slip Op 3270 (Appellate Division of the Supreme Court of New York, 2019)
Peg Bandwidth, LLC v. Optical Communications
2017 NY Slip Op 4233 (Appellate Division of the Supreme Court of New York, 2017)
Lynch v. City of New York
56 Misc. 3d 433 (New York Supreme Court, 2017)

Cite This Page — Counsel Stack

Bluebook (online)
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.