HSBC Bank USA, N.A. v. Donaldson

2020 NY Slip Op 1581, 181 A.D.3d 464, 117 N.Y.S.3d 573
CourtAppellate Division of the Supreme Court of the State of New York
DecidedMarch 10, 2020
Docket11232A 11232
StatusPublished
Cited by1 cases

This text of 2020 NY Slip Op 1581 (HSBC Bank USA, N.A. v. Donaldson) 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
HSBC Bank USA, N.A. v. Donaldson, 2020 NY Slip Op 1581, 181 A.D.3d 464, 117 N.Y.S.3d 573 (N.Y. Ct. App. 2020).

Opinion

HSBC Bank USA, N.A. v Donaldson (2020 NY Slip Op 01581)
HSBC Bank USA, N.A. v Donaldson
2020 NY Slip Op 01581
Decided on March 10, 2020
Appellate Division, First Department
Published by New York State Law Reporting Bureau pursuant to Judiciary Law § 431.
This opinion is uncorrected and subject to revision before publication in the Official Reports.


Decided on March 10, 2020
Gische, J.P., Webber, Gesmer, Kern, JJ.

11232A 11232

[*1] HSBC Bank USA, N.A., Plaintiff-Respondent,

v

Kavian Donaldson, Defendant-Appellant, Gregory Donaldson, et al., Defendants.


Michael Kennedy Karlson, New York, for appellant.

Shapiro DiCaro & Barak, LLC, Rochester (William Jennings of counsel), for respondent.



Order, Supreme Court, Bronx County (Doris M. Gonzalez, J.), entered June 21, 2019, which granted defendant Kavian Donaldson's motion for reargument, and, upon reargument, substantially adhered to the prior order denying defendant's motion for a default judgment on his counterclaim and granting plaintiff's cross motion for leave to reply to the counterclaim, unanimously affirmed, without costs. Appeal from order, same court and Justice, entered on or about April 16, 2019, unanimously dismissed, without costs, as academic.

Plaintiff's excuse for its delay in replying to defendant's counterclaim, i.e., law office failure, is reasonable, in view of the shortness of the delay and the absence of evidence of willfulness or of prejudice to defendant (see e.g. Hertz Vehs., LLC v Mollo, 171 AD3d 651 [1st Dept 2019]; Newyear v Beth Abraham Nursing Home, 157 AD3d 651 [1st Dept 2018]). Contrary to defendant's contention, since plaintiff moved pursuant to CPLR 3012(d), no showing of a meritorious defense was required.

However, we note in any event that plaintiff made such a showing.

THIS CONSTITUTES THE DECISION AND ORDER

OF THE SUPREME COURT, APPELLATE DIVISION, FIRST DEPARTMENT.

ENTERED: MARCH 10, 2020

DEPUTY CLERK



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

Related

Homapour v. 3M Props., LLC
2024 NY Slip Op 34518(U) (New York Supreme Court, New York County, 2024)

Cite This Page — Counsel Stack

Bluebook (online)
2020 NY Slip Op 1581, 181 A.D.3d 464, 117 N.Y.S.3d 573, Counsel Stack Legal Research, https://law.counselstack.com/opinion/hsbc-bank-usa-na-v-donaldson-nyappdiv-2020.