Hu-Nam-Nam v. Auto One Ins. Co.

CourtAppellate Terms of the Supreme Court of New York
DecidedDecember 15, 2017
Docket2017 NYSlipOp 51781(U)
StatusPublished

This text of Hu-Nam-Nam v. Auto One Ins. Co. (Hu-Nam-Nam v. Auto One Ins. Co.) is published on Counsel Stack Legal Research, covering Appellate Terms of the Supreme Court of New York primary law. Counsel Stack provides free access to over 12 million legal documents including statutes, case law, regulations, and constitutions.

Bluebook
Hu-Nam-Nam v. Auto One Ins. Co., (N.Y. Ct. App. 2017).

Opinion



Hu-Nam-Nam, M.D., as Assignee of Mercado Jose, Respondent,

against

Auto One Insurance Company, Appellant.


Law Office of Jason Tenenbaum, P.C. (Jason Tenenbaum, Esq.), for appellant. Law Offices of Melissa Betancourt, P.C. (Melissa Betancourt, Esq.), for respondent.

Appeal from an order of the Civil Court of the City of New York, Kings County (Robin Kelly Sheares, J.), entered October 2, 2014. The order granted plaintiff's motion to enter a default judgment and denied defendant's cross motion to open its default in answering and to compel plaintiff to accept a late answer.

ORDERED that the order is reversed, with $30 costs, plaintiff's motion to enter a default judgment is denied, and defendant's cross motion to open its default in answering and to compel plaintiff to accept a late answer is granted.

In this action by a provider to recover assigned first-party no-fault benefits, defendant appeals from an order which granted plaintiff's motion to enter a default judgment and denied defendant's cross motion to open its default and to compel plaintiff to accept a late answer.

It is well settled that in order to open a default in answering, the defendant must demonstrate both a reasonable excuse for its delay in appearing and answering the complaint as well as a meritorious defense to the action (see CPLR 5015 [a] [1]; Eugene Di Lorenzo, Inc. v A.C. Dutton Lbr. Co., 67 NY2d 138, 141 [1986]; Sound Shore Med. Ctr. v Lumbermens Mut. Cas. Co., 31 AD3d 743 [2006]). Here, defendant established a reasonable excuse for its failure to serve an answer (see Vardaros v Zapas, 105 AD3d 1037 [2013]) and made a prima facie showing of a viable defense based on a lack of medical necessity.

Accordingly, the order is reversed, plaintiff's motion to enter a default judgment is denied, and defendant's cross motion to open its default in answering and to compel plaintiff to accept a late answer is granted.

PESCE, P.J., ALIOTTA and SOLOMON, JJ., concur.


ENTER:
Paul Kenny
Chief Clerk
Decision Date: December 15, 2017

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

Related

Eugene Di Lorenzo, Inc. v. A. C. Dutton Lumber Co.
492 N.E.2d 116 (New York Court of Appeals, 1986)
Sound Shore Medical Center v. Lumbermens Mutual Casualty Co.
31 A.D.3d 743 (Appellate Division of the Supreme Court of New York, 2006)

Cite This Page — Counsel Stack

Bluebook (online)
Hu-Nam-Nam v. Auto One Ins. Co., Counsel Stack Legal Research, https://law.counselstack.com/opinion/hu-nam-nam-v-auto-one-ins-co-nyappterm-2017.