Lipp v. Port Authority of New York & New Jersey

34 A.D.3d 649, 824 N.Y.S.2d 671
CourtAppellate Division of the Supreme Court of the State of New York
DecidedNovember 21, 2006
StatusPublished
Cited by18 cases

This text of 34 A.D.3d 649 (Lipp v. Port Authority of New York & New Jersey) 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
Lipp v. Port Authority of New York & New Jersey, 34 A.D.3d 649, 824 N.Y.S.2d 671 (N.Y. Ct. App. 2006).

Opinion

In an action to recover damages for personal injuries, etc., the plaintiffs appeal from an order of the Supreme Court, Queens County (Nelson, J.), dated January 9, 2006, which granted the defendant’s motion pursuant to CPLR 3012 to extend its time to serve an answer or, in the alternative, to compel the acceptance of an untimely answer and, in effect, denied their cross motion for leave to enter judgment upon the defendant’s failure to appear or answer.

Ordered that the order is reversed, on the law and as a matter of discretion, with costs, the motion is denied, the cross motion is granted, and the matter is remitted to the Supreme Court, Queens County, for an inquest on the issue of damages.

A defendant who has failed to timely appear or answer the complaint must provide a reasonable excuse for the default and demonstrate a meritorious defense to the action, when opposing a motion for leave to enter judgment upon its failure to appear or answer and moving to extend the time to answer or to compel the acceptance of an untimely answer (see Juseinoski v Board of Educ. of City of N.Y., 15 AD3d 353, 356 [2005]; Ennis v Lema, 305 AD2d 632, 633 [2003]). In support of its motion, the defendant failed to present any evidence of a meritorious defense. Accordingly, the defendant’s motion to extend its time to serve an [650]*650answer or to compel the acceptance of an untimely answer should have been denied.

The plaintiffs submitted proof of service of the summons and complaint, a factually-detailed verified notice of claim, and an affirmation from their attorney regarding the defendant’s default in appearing and answering (see CPLR 3215 [f]). Accordingly, the plaintiffs’ cross motion for leave to enter judgment against the defendant should have been granted (see Giovanelli v Rivera, 23 AD3d 616 [2005]; Landaverde v Wroth, 260 AD2d 448 [1999]). Miller, J.P., Santucci, Goldstein, Skelos and Lunn, JJ., concur.

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

Related

Reed v. Social Security
E.D. Michigan, 2020
Kennedy v. City of New York
114 A.D.3d 831 (Appellate Division of the Supreme Court of New York, 2014)
Vigo v. 501 Second Street Holding Corp.
100 A.D.3d 871 (Appellate Division of the Supreme Court of New York, 2012)
Wells Fargo Bank, N.A. v. Wine
90 A.D.3d 1216 (Appellate Division of the Supreme Court of New York, 2011)
Jormar Construction Co. v. Tinawi
30 Misc. 3d 410 (Civil Court of the City of New York, 2010)
Valiotis v. Psaroudis
78 A.D.3d 683 (Appellate Division of the Supreme Court of New York, 2010)
Maspeth Federal Savings & Loan Ass'n v. McGown
77 A.D.3d 889 (Appellate Division of the Supreme Court of New York, 2010)
Maspeth Federal Savings & Loan Ass'n v. McGowan
77 A.D.3d 890 (Appellate Division of the Supreme Court of New York, 2010)
Moriano v. Provident New York Bancorp
71 A.D.3d 747 (Appellate Division of the Supreme Court of New York, 2010)
Gross v. Kail
70 A.D.3d 997 (Appellate Division of the Supreme Court of New York, 2010)
Okeke v. Ewool
66 A.D.3d 978 (Appellate Division of the Supreme Court of New York, 2009)
Lipp v. Port Authority of New York & New Jersey
57 A.D.3d 953 (Appellate Division of the Supreme Court of New York, 2008)
Trini Realty Corp. v. Fulton Center LLC
53 A.D.3d 479 (Appellate Division of the Supreme Court of New York, 2008)
Lipp v. Port Authority of New York & New Jersey
17 Misc. 3d 667 (New York Supreme Court, 2007)
Levine v. Forgotson's Central Auto & Electric, Inc.
41 A.D.3d 552 (Appellate Division of the Supreme Court of New York, 2007)
Jamieson v. Roman
36 A.D.3d 861 (Appellate Division of the Supreme Court of New York, 2007)

Cite This Page — Counsel Stack

Bluebook (online)
34 A.D.3d 649, 824 N.Y.S.2d 671, Counsel Stack Legal Research, https://law.counselstack.com/opinion/lipp-v-port-authority-of-new-york-new-jersey-nyappdiv-2006.