Mema v. 25 Broadway Realty

2017 NY Slip Op 1282, 147 A.D.3d 562, 46 N.Y.S.3d 798

Opinion

Order, Supreme Court, New York County (James E. d’Auguste, J.), entered December 17, 2015, which denied defendant One State Street, LLC’s (One State Street) motion to vacate its default, extend its time to serve an answer, and compel plaintiff to accept service of the answer nunc pro tunc, unanimously reversed, on the law and the facts, without costs, and the motion granted.

Supreme Court correctly determined that the affidavit One State Street submitted in support of its motion sufficiently demonstrated that it did not personally receive the summons and complaint in time to defend, but erred when it determined that One State Street did not present a meritorious defense (CPLR 317; see Marte v 102-06 43 Ave., LLC, 135 AD3d 457 [1st Dept 2016]; see Ortiz v City of New York, 103 AD3d 468, 469 [1st Dept 2013]).

Concur — Friedman, J.P., Mazzarelli, Andrias, Feinman and Gesmer, JJ.