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

Appellate Division of the Supreme Court of the State of New York·Decided June 28, 1999·Published

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.

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

262 A.D.2d 615 (Mark Tree Plaza Associates, Inc. v. Matrix Realty Group, Inc.) — published by Counsel Stack Legal Research, free access to 12M+ legal documents.

Opinion

Related