Gonzalez v. Seejattan

123 A.D.3d 762, 996 N.Y.S.2d 536
CourtAppellate Division of the Supreme Court of the State of New York
DecidedDecember 10, 2014
Docket2014-07823
StatusPublished
Cited by7 cases

This text of 123 A.D.3d 762 (Gonzalez v. Seejattan) 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
Gonzalez v. Seejattan, 123 A.D.3d 762, 996 N.Y.S.2d 536 (N.Y. Ct. App. 2014).

Opinion

In an action to recover damages for personal injuries, the *763 plaintiff appeals from an order of the Supreme Court, Queens County (Strauss, J.), entered June 16, 2014, which denied his motion pursuant to CPLR 3215 for leave to enter judgment on the issue of liability against the defendant upon his failure to appear or answer the complaint and for an inquest on the issue of damages, and granted the defendant’s cross motion pursuant to CPLR 2004 and 3012 (d) to vacate the default and to compel the plaintiff to accept his late answer.

Ordered that the order is affirmed, with costs.

Under the circumstances of this case, the Supreme Court providently exercised its discretion in denying the plaintiff’s motion, inter alia, for leave to enter judgment against the defendant upon his failure to appear or answer the complaint, and granting the defendant’s cross motion pursuant to CPLR 2004 and 3012 (d) to vacate his default and compel the plaintiff to accept his late answer. In light of the lack of any prejudice to the plaintiff resulting from the defendant’s short two-month delay in appearing or answering the complaint, the lack of willfulness on the part of the defendant, the existence of a potentially meritorious defense, and the public policy favoring the resolution of cases on the merits, the defendant’s default was properly excused (see Hosten v Oladapo, 52 AD3d 658 [2008]; Stuart v Kushner, 39 AD3d 535, 536 [2007]; Schonfeld v Blue & White Food Prods. Corp., 29 AD3d 673, 674 [2006]).

Skelos, J.P., Leventhal, Hinds-Radix, Duffy and LaSalle, JJ., concur.

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

Related

U.S. Bank N.A. v. Hernandez
2024 NY Slip Op 33418(U) (New York Supreme Court, Kings County, 2024)
Hoffman v. 461 Arlington Props., LLC
2021 NY Slip Op 04122 (Appellate Division of the Supreme Court of New York, 2021)
Velez v. Mr. Demolition, Inc.
2019 NY Slip Op 3841 (Appellate Division of the Supreme Court of New York, 2019)
Yuxi Li v. Caruso
2018 NY Slip Op 3729 (Appellate Division of the Supreme Court of New York, 2018)
Wax Ex Rel. Wax v. 716 Realty, LLC
2017 NY Slip Op 4876 (Appellate Division of the Supreme Court of New York, 2017)
Spence v. Davis
139 A.D.3d 703 (Appellate Division of the Supreme Court of New York, 2016)
Alonso v. Lorimik Realty Corp.
131 A.D.3d 496 (Appellate Division of the Supreme Court of New York, 2015)

Cite This Page — Counsel Stack

Bluebook (online)
123 A.D.3d 762, 996 N.Y.S.2d 536, Counsel Stack Legal Research, https://law.counselstack.com/opinion/gonzalez-v-seejattan-nyappdiv-2014.