Giladi v. City of New York

Appellate Division of the Supreme Court of New York

Giladi v. City of New York

34 A.D.3d 733, 826 N.Y.S.2d 328

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

DecidedNovember 28, 2006

StatusPublished

Cited by1 cases

This text of 34 A.D.3d 733 (Giladi v. City of New York) 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

Giladi v. City of New York, 34 A.D.3d 733, 826 N.Y.S.2d 328 (N.Y. Ct. App. 2006).

Pincite

Opinion

In an action to recover damages for personal injuries, the plaintiff appeals from an order of the Supreme Court, Kings County (Hinds-Radix, J.), dated February 22, 2006, which granted the motion of the defendant New York City Transit Authority, in effect, to vacate its default in appearing or answering the complaint and to compel her to accept its untimely answer.

Ordered that the order is affirmed, with costs.

The Supreme Court providently exercised its discretion in granting the motion of the defendant New York City Transit Authority (hereinafter the defendant), in effect, to vacate its default in appearing or answering the complaint and to compel the plaintiff to accept its answer, which was untimely served. The defendant’s delay in answering was brief, the default was not willful, there exists a potentially meritorious defense, and there was no evidence of prejudice to the plaintiff (see Bunch v Dollar Budget, Inc., 12 AD3d 391 [2004]; Orwell Bldg. Corp. v Bessaha, 5 AD3d 573 [2004]; Sippin v Gallardo, 287 AD2d 703 [2001]). Furthermore, public policy favors the resolution of cases on the merits (see Bunch v Dollar Budget, supra). Adams, J.P., Santucci, Mastro and Lifson, 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 personal injuries, the plaintiff appeals from an order of the Supreme Court, Kings County (Hinds-Radix, J.), dated February 22, 2006, which granted the motion of the defendant New York City Transit Authority, in effect, to vacate its default in appearing or answering the complaint and to compel her to accept its untimely answer.

Ordered that the order is affirmed, with costs.

The Supreme Court providently exercised its discretion in granting the motion of the defendant New York City Transit Authority (hereinafter the defendant), in effect, to vacate its default in appearing or answering the complaint and to compel the plaintiff to accept its answer, which was untimely served. The defendant’s delay in answering was brief, the default was not willful, there exists a potentially meritorious defense, and there was no evidence of prejudice to the plaintiff (see Bunch v Dollar Budget, Inc., 12 AD3d 391 [2004]; Orwell Bldg. Corp. v Bessaha, 5 AD3d 573 [2004]; Sippin v Gallardo, 287 AD2d 703 [2001]). Furthermore, public policy favors the resolution of cases on the merits (see Bunch v Dollar Budget, supra). Adams, J.P., Santucci, Mastro and Lifson, JJ., concur.

Cite This Page — Counsel Stack

Bluebook (online)

34 A.D.3d 733, 826 N.Y.S.2d 328, Counsel Stack Legal Research, https://law.counselstack.com/opinion/giladi-v-city-of-new-york-nyappdiv-2006.

Opinion

Related

Cite This Page — Counsel Stack