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

Appellate Division of the Supreme Court of the State of New York·Decided November 28, 2006·Published·Cited by 1 cases

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.

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

Pincite

34 A.D.3d 733 (Giladi v. City of New York) — published by Counsel Stack Legal Research, free access to 12M+ legal documents.

Opinion

Related