Pagan v. Four Thirty Realty LLC

Appellate Division of the Supreme Court of New York

Pagan v. Four Thirty Realty LLC

50 A.D.3d 265, 855 N.Y.S.2d 63

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

DecidedApril 1, 2008

StatusPublished

Cited by1 cases

This text of 50 A.D.3d 265 (Pagan v. Four Thirty Realty LLC) 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

Pagan v. Four Thirty Realty LLC, 50 A.D.3d 265, 855 N.Y.S.2d 63 (N.Y. Ct. App. 2008).

Pincite

Opinion

Order, Supreme Court, New York County (Emily Jane Goodman, J.), entered March 21, 2007, which, to the extent appealed from as limited by the briefs, denied plaintiffs’ motion for a default judgment, unanimously affirmed, without costs.

In this action alleging discrimination in housing, retaliatory eviction and personal injury, defendants demonstrated a reasonable excuse for their delay in answering the complaint (see Castillo v Garzon-Ruiz, 290 AD2d 288, 290 [2002]; Parker v I.E.S.I. N.Y. Corp., 279 AD2d 395 [2001], lv dismissed 96 NY2d 927 [2001]; Barajas v Toll Bros., 247 AD2d 242 [1998]; Ganvey Merchandising Corp. u Knudsen El. Corp., 169 AD2d 518 [1991]). We note that they established prima facie meritorious defenses to plaintiffs’ claims. Plaintiffs have not demonstrated that they suffered any prejudice as a result of the delay (see Castillo, 290 AD2d at 290; Share v Village of Westhampton Beach, 121 AD2d 887 [1986]). This State’s public policy favors determinations on the merits (see Guzetti v City of New York, 32 AD3d 234 [2006]). Concur—Lippman, PJ., Tom, Williams and Acosta, JJ.

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

Order, Supreme Court, New York County (Emily Jane Goodman, J.), entered March 21, 2007, which, to the extent appealed from as limited by the briefs, denied plaintiffs’ motion for a default judgment, unanimously affirmed, without costs.

In this action alleging discrimination in housing, retaliatory eviction and personal injury, defendants demonstrated a reasonable excuse for their delay in answering the complaint (see Castillo v Garzon-Ruiz, 290 AD2d 288, 290 [2002]; Parker v I.E.S.I. N.Y. Corp., 279 AD2d 395 [2001], lv dismissed 96 NY2d 927 [2001]; Barajas v Toll Bros., 247 AD2d 242 [1998]; Ganvey Merchandising Corp. u Knudsen El. Corp., 169 AD2d 518 [1991]). We note that they established prima facie meritorious defenses to plaintiffs’ claims. Plaintiffs have not demonstrated that they suffered any prejudice as a result of the delay (see Castillo, 290 AD2d at 290; Share v Village of Westhampton Beach, 121 AD2d 887 [1986]). This State’s public policy favors determinations on the merits (see Guzetti v City of New York, 32 AD3d 234 [2006]). Concur—Lippman, PJ., Tom, Williams and Acosta, JJ.

Cite This Page — Counsel Stack

Bluebook (online)

50 A.D.3d 265, 855 N.Y.S.2d 63, Counsel Stack Legal Research, https://law.counselstack.com/opinion/pagan-v-four-thirty-realty-llc-nyappdiv-2008.

Opinion

Related

Cite This Page — Counsel Stack