JPMorgan Chase Bank, National Ass'n v. Hayes

138 A.D.3d 617, 28 N.Y.S.3d 868

Opinion

Order, Supreme Court, New York County (Cynthia S. Kern, J.), entered August 19, 2015, which denied defendant Sharay Hayes’s motion to compel plaintiff to comply with the terms of a stipulation, and granted plaintiff’s cross motion for an extension of time to oppose defendant’s motion nunc pro tunc, unanimously affirmed, with costs.

The motion court properly considered plaintiff’s late-served opposition to defendant’s motion, because the 15-day delay was to accommodate new counsel, and there was no showing of prejudice to defendant, who was able to submit reply papers (CPLR 2214 [b], [c]; see Traders Co. v AST Sportswear, Inc., 31 AD3d 276 [1st Dept 2006]; Romeo v Ben-Soph Food Corp., 146 AD2d 688 [2d Dept 1989]).

In any event, the email from plaintiff’s counsel to defendant stating, “My client has advised me that based upon the BPO the minimum offer that could be submitted to the investor for consideration is $985,600,” was not a contractually binding offer (see Eustathopoulo v Gillespie, 218 App Div 179, 186 [1st Dept 1926]).

Concur — Sweeny, J.P, Saxe, Moskowitz, Gische and Webber, JJ.