Mujica v. Pena

Appellate Division of the Supreme Court of New York

Mujica v. Pena

131 A.D.2d 649, 516 N.Y.S.2d 731, 1987 N.Y. App. Div. LEXIS 48111

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

DecidedJune 15, 1987

StatusPublished

Cited by1 cases

This text of 131 A.D.2d 649 (Mujica v. Pena) 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

Mujica v. Pena, 131 A.D.2d 649, 516 N.Y.S.2d 731, 1987 N.Y. App. Div. LEXIS 48111 (N.Y. Ct. App. 1987).

Pincite

Opinion

In an action, inter alia, for the partition of real property, the plaintiff appeals from an order of the Supreme Court, Queens County (Hyman, J.), dated July 29, 1986, which denied his motion to vacate an ex parte order of the same court, dated May 12, 1986, extending the defendant Pena’s time to answer.

Ordered that the order is affirmed, with costs.

The Supreme Court did not abuse its discretion in granting the defendant Pena an extension of time to answer in view of [650]*650the following factors: (1) there was a reasonable excuse for a nonlengthy delay in serving the answer, (2) Pena’s counsel, once retained, acted with dispatch to promptly request an extension, (3) the application for an extension preceded any motion for leave to enter a default judgment, (4) no prejudice to the plaintiff is claimed to have accrued from the short delay, (5) public policy is in favor of resolving cases on the merits so that the expeditious disposal of cases does not become an end in itself (Lindo v Evans, 98 AD2d 765), and (6) the proposed verified answer was a proper substitute for an affidavit of merit (see, CPLR 105 [t]; Dolgin Enters. v Central Adj. Bur., 118 AD2d 680). Lawrence, J. P., Weinstein, Rubin and Kooper, JJ., concur.

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

In an action, inter alia, for the partition of real property, the plaintiff appeals from an order of the Supreme Court, Queens County (Hyman, J.), dated July 29, 1986, which denied his motion to vacate an ex parte order of the same court, dated May 12, 1986, extending the defendant Pena’s time to answer.

Ordered that the order is affirmed, with costs.

The Supreme Court did not abuse its discretion in granting the defendant Pena an extension of time to answer in view of [650]*650the following factors: (1) there was a reasonable excuse for a nonlengthy delay in serving the answer, (2) Pena’s counsel, once retained, acted with dispatch to promptly request an extension, (3) the application for an extension preceded any motion for leave to enter a default judgment, (4) no prejudice to the plaintiff is claimed to have accrued from the short delay, (5) public policy is in favor of resolving cases on the merits so that the expeditious disposal of cases does not become an end in itself (Lindo v Evans, 98 AD2d 765), and (6) the proposed verified answer was a proper substitute for an affidavit of merit (see, CPLR 105 [t]; Dolgin Enters. v Central Adj. Bur., 118 AD2d 680). Lawrence, J. P., Weinstein, Rubin and Kooper, JJ., concur.

Cite This Page — Counsel Stack

Bluebook (online)

131 A.D.2d 649, 516 N.Y.S.2d 731, 1987 N.Y. App. Div. LEXIS 48111, Counsel Stack Legal Research, https://law.counselstack.com/opinion/mujica-v-pena-nyappdiv-1987.

Opinion

Related

Cite This Page — Counsel Stack