Mark Tree Plaza Associates, Inc. v. Matrix Realty Group, Inc.

Appellate Division of the Supreme Court of New York

Mark Tree Plaza Associates, Inc. v. Matrix Realty Group, Inc.

262 A.D.2d 615, 691 N.Y.S.2d 355, 1999 N.Y. App. Div. LEXIS 7646

CourtAppellate Division of the Supreme Court of the State of New York

DecidedJune 28, 1999

StatusPublished

This text of 262 A.D.2d 615 (Mark Tree Plaza Associates, Inc. v. Matrix Realty Group, 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

Mark Tree Plaza Associates, Inc. v. Matrix Realty Group, Inc., 262 A.D.2d 615, 691 N.Y.S.2d 355, 1999 N.Y. App. Div. LEXIS 7646 (N.Y. Ct. App. 1999).

Pincite

Opinion

—In an action, inter alia, to recover damages for fraud, the plaintiff appeals from an order of the Supreme Court, Suffolk County (Cannavo, J.), dated July 28, 1998, which denied its motion for leave to enter a default judgment upon the failure of the defendants to appear or answer.

Ordered that the order is affirmed, with costs.

The Supreme Court properly determined that the defendants’ failure to timely file and serve an answer was an “isolated, inadvertent mistake” (Chery v Anthony, 156 AD2d 414, 417), rather than “a serious lack of concerned attention to the progress of this action” (Lauro v Cronin, 184 AD2d 837, 839). In addition, the defendants demonstrated a meritorious defense, and the plaintiff failed to demonstrate any prejudice stemming from the late service of the answer (see, CPLR 2005; Tewari v Tsoutsouras, 75 NY2d 1, 12; Sanchez v Javind Apt. Corp., 246 AD2d 353; Burlew-Watkins v Wood, 225 AD2d 973). Accordingly, the plaintiffs motion for leave to enter a default judgment was properly denied. O’Brien, J. P., Ritter, Joy, Altman and Smith, JJ., concur.

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

—In an action, inter alia, to recover damages for fraud, the plaintiff appeals from an order of the Supreme Court, Suffolk County (Cannavo, J.), dated July 28, 1998, which denied its motion for leave to enter a default judgment upon the failure of the defendants to appear or answer.

Ordered that the order is affirmed, with costs.

The Supreme Court properly determined that the defendants’ failure to timely file and serve an answer was an “isolated, inadvertent mistake” (Chery v Anthony, 156 AD2d 414, 417), rather than “a serious lack of concerned attention to the progress of this action” (Lauro v Cronin, 184 AD2d 837, 839). In addition, the defendants demonstrated a meritorious defense, and the plaintiff failed to demonstrate any prejudice stemming from the late service of the answer (see, CPLR 2005; Tewari v Tsoutsouras, 75 NY2d 1, 12; Sanchez v Javind Apt. Corp., 246 AD2d 353; Burlew-Watkins v Wood, 225 AD2d 973). Accordingly, the plaintiffs motion for leave to enter a default judgment was properly denied. O’Brien, J. P., Ritter, Joy, Altman and Smith, JJ., concur.

Cite This Page — Counsel Stack

Bluebook (online)

262 A.D.2d 615, 691 N.Y.S.2d 355, 1999 N.Y. App. Div. LEXIS 7646, Counsel Stack Legal Research, https://law.counselstack.com/opinion/mark-tree-plaza-associates-inc-v-matrix-realty-group-inc-nyappdiv-1999.

Opinion

Related

Cite This Page — Counsel Stack