May v. Hartsdale Manor Owners Corp.

73 A.D.3d 713, 900 N.Y.S.2d 359
CourtAppellate Division of the Supreme Court of the State of New York
DecidedMay 4, 2010
StatusPublished
Cited by12 cases

This text of 73 A.D.3d 713 (May v. Hartsdale Manor Owners Corp.) 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
May v. Hartsdale Manor Owners Corp., 73 A.D.3d 713, 900 N.Y.S.2d 359 (N.Y. Ct. App. 2010).

Opinion

In an action to recover damages for personal injuries, the plaintiff appeals from an order of the Supreme Court, West-chester County (Liebowitz, J.), entered October 30, 2009, which denied his motion for leave to enter judgment on the issue of liability against the defendant CDT Real Estate Management Corp. upon its default in answering, and granted that defendant leave to serve a late answer.

Ordered that the order is reversed, on the facts and in the exercise of discretion, with costs, and the plaintiffs motion for leave to enter judgment on the issue of liability against the defendant CDT Real Estate Management Corp. is granted.

To successfully oppose a motion for leave to enter a default judgment based on the failure to timely serve an answer, a defendant must demonstrate a reasonable excuse for its delay and the existence of a meritorious defense (see Kouzios v Dery, 57 AD3d 949 [2008]; Giovanelli v Rivera, 23 AD3d 616 [2005]; Mjahdi v Maguire, 21 AD3d 1067, 1068 [2005]; Thompson v Steuben Realty Corp., 18 AD3d 864, 865 [2005]; Dinstber v Fludd, 2 AD3d 670, 671 [2003]). Here, the defendant CDT Real Estate Management Corp. (hereinafter CDT) attempted to place the blame for its default in answering upon its insurance company. However, CDT already was in default by the time it finally forwarded the summons and complaint to its insurance broker, and CDT failed to offer any explanation for this delay. Accordingly, it was an improvident exercise of discretion to excuse the default of CDT, and to extend its time to serve an answer in the absence of a cross motion for such relief (see CFLR 2215; Zino v Joab Taxi, Inc., 20 AD3d 521, 522 [2005]; Hosten v Oladapo, 44 AD3d 1006 [2007]). Fisher, J.P., Covello, Balkin, Leventhal and Lott, 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)
Gomez v. Gomez-Trimarchi
137 A.D.3d 972 (Appellate Division of the Supreme Court of New York, 2016)
Hamilton Public Relations v. Scientivity, LLC
129 A.D.3d 1025 (Appellate Division of the Supreme Court of New York, 2015)
Fried v. Jacob Holding, Inc.
110 A.D.3d 56 (Appellate Division of the Supreme Court of New York, 2013)
Wassertheil v. Elburg, LLC
94 A.D.3d 753 (Appellate Division of the Supreme Court of New York, 2012)
Swedbank, AB v. Hale Avenue Borrower, LLC
89 A.D.3d 922 (Appellate Division of the Supreme Court of New York, 2011)
Holubar v. Holubar
89 A.D.3d 802 (Appellate Division of the Supreme Court of New York, 2011)
Ogman v. Mastrantonio Catering, Inc.
82 A.D.3d 852 (Appellate Division of the Supreme Court of New York, 2011)
HSBC Bank USA, N.A. v. Roldan
80 A.D.3d 566 (Appellate Division of the Supreme Court of New York, 2011)
McGee v. Dunn
75 A.D.3d 624 (Appellate Division of the Supreme Court of New York, 2010)

Cite This Page — Counsel Stack

Bluebook (online)
73 A.D.3d 713, 900 N.Y.S.2d 359, Counsel Stack Legal Research, https://law.counselstack.com/opinion/may-v-hartsdale-manor-owners-corp-nyappdiv-2010.