Klughaupt v. Hi-Tower Contractors, Inc.

64 A.D.3d 545, 882 N.Y.S.2d 313
CourtAppellate Division of the Supreme Court of the State of New York
DecidedJuly 7, 2009
StatusPublished
Cited by16 cases

This text of 64 A.D.3d 545 (Klughaupt v. Hi-Tower Contractors, Inc.) 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
Klughaupt v. Hi-Tower Contractors, Inc., 64 A.D.3d 545, 882 N.Y.S.2d 313 (N.Y. Ct. App. 2009).

Opinion

In an action to recover damages for personal injuries, the [546]*546plaintiff appeals from an order of the Supreme Court, Kings County (Miller, J.), dated November 17, 2008, which denied her motion for leave to enter a default judgment against the defendant Lynch Park, LLC, and granted that defendant’s cross motion to vacate its default in answering and for leave to serve a late answer.

Ordered that the order is affirmed, with costs.

The Supreme Court providently exercised its discretion in denying the plaintiffs motion for leave to enter a default judgment against the defendant Lynch Park, LLC (hereinafter Lynch Park), and in granting Lynch Park’s cross motion to vacate its default in answering and for leave to serve a late answer (see CPLR 5015). Considering the lack of any prejudice to the plaintiff as a result of the relatively short three-week delay in serving an answer, the existence of a potentially meritorious defense, and the public policy favoring the resolution of cases on the merits, the Supreme Court properly excused the de minimis delay in answering (see Schonfeld v Blue & White Food Prods. Corp., 29 AD3d 673 [2006]; Yonkers Rib House, Inc. v 1789 Cent. Park Corp., 19 AD3d 687 [2005]; Trimble v SAS Taxi Co. Inc., 8 AD3d 557 [2004]; see e.g. Perez v Linshar Realty Corp., 259 AD2d 532 [1999]; Swidler v World-Wide Volkswagen Corp., 85 AD2d 239 [1982]; cf. Leifer v Pilgreen Corp., 62 AD3d 759 [2009] [10-month delay in moving to vacate default in answering or appearing, with no meritorious defense, does not warrant vacatur of default]). Skelos, J.P., Florio, Balkin, Belen and Austin, 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. Rodriguez
2024 NY Slip Op 50047(U) (New York Supreme Court, Bronx County, 2024)
EHS Quickstops Corp. v. GRJH, Inc.
112 A.D.3d 577 (Appellate Division of the Supreme Court of New York, 2013)
Fried v. Jacob Holding, Inc.
110 A.D.3d 56 (Appellate Division of the Supreme Court of New York, 2013)
Vellucci v. Home Depot U.S.A., Inc.
102 A.D.3d 767 (Appellate Division of the Supreme Court of New York, 2013)
Emilius v. Vanderbeek
98 A.D.3d 558 (Appellate Division of the Supreme Court of New York, 2012)
Arias v. First Presbyterian Church in Jamaica
97 A.D.3d 712 (Appellate Division of the Supreme Court of New York, 2012)
Dimitriadis v. Visiting Nurse Service
84 A.D.3d 1150 (Appellate Division of the Supreme Court of New York, 2011)
Chakmakian v. Maroney
78 A.D.3d 1103 (Appellate Division of the Supreme Court of New York, 2010)
Covaci v. Whitestone Construction Corp.
78 A.D.3d 1108 (Appellate Division of the Supreme Court of New York, 2010)
Performance Construction Corp. v. Huntington Building, LLC
68 A.D.3d 737 (Appellate Division of the Supreme Court of New York, 2009)

Cite This Page — Counsel Stack

Bluebook (online)
64 A.D.3d 545, 882 N.Y.S.2d 313, Counsel Stack Legal Research, https://law.counselstack.com/opinion/klughaupt-v-hi-tower-contractors-inc-nyappdiv-2009.