State Farm Mutual Automobile Insurance v. Rodriguez

12 A.D.3d 662, 784 N.Y.S.2d 875, 2004 N.Y. App. Div. LEXIS 14503
CourtAppellate Division of the Supreme Court of the State of New York
DecidedNovember 29, 2004
StatusPublished
Cited by8 cases

This text of 12 A.D.3d 662 (State Farm Mutual Automobile Insurance v. Rodriguez) 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
State Farm Mutual Automobile Insurance v. Rodriguez, 12 A.D.3d 662, 784 N.Y.S.2d 875, 2004 N.Y. App. Div. LEXIS 14503 (N.Y. Ct. App. 2004).

Opinion

In a subrogation action to recover insurance benefits paid to [663]*663the plaintiffs insured, the defendant appeals, as limited by his brief, from so much of an order of the Supreme Court, Nassau County (Palmieri, J.), dated April 12, 2004, as denied his cross motion to dismiss the complaint pursuant to CPLR 3215 (c).

Ordered that the order is affirmed insofar as appealed from, with costs.

“Where a defendant defaults in appearing or answering and a plaintiff fails to enter a judgment upon the default within one year thereof, the action is deemed abandoned (see CPLR 3215 [c])” (Turnbull v Summit Entertainment Corp., 300 AD2d 392, 392 [2002]). Under such circumstances, to avoid dismissal of the complaint, the plaintiff must offer a reasonable excuse for its delay and demonstrate the merits of the complaint (see CPLR 3215 [c]).

The plaintiffs delay in entering a default judgment was reasonable under the circumstances. The plaintiffs counsel notified the defendant’s insurance carrier of the action within the one-year period specified in CPLR 3215 (c) and the carrier indicated that it was attempting to confirm coverage (see Rivera v Shlagbaum, 204 AD2d 524 [1994]; Ingenito v Grumman Corp., 192 AD2d 509, 510-511 [1993]; Hinds v 2461 Realty Corp., 169 AD2d 629 [1991]). Furthermore, the complaint verified by the plaintiffs attorney was sufficient to constitute a sufficient affidavit of merits where, as here, the plaintiffs attorney had personal knowledge of the facts constituting the action (see CPLR 105 [u]; Martin v Zangrillo, 186 AD2d 724 [1992]). Florio, J.P., Goldstein, Adams, Rivera and Spolzino, JJ., concur.

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

Related

People v. Susana Toys LLC
2024 NY Slip Op 34477(U) (New York Supreme Court, New York County, 2024)
Kanner v. Westchester Med. Group, P.L.L.C.
New York Supreme Court, 2023
Clarke v. Liberty Mutual Fire Insurance Co.
2017 NY Slip Op 4250 (Appellate Division of the Supreme Court of New York, 2017)
Oliveras v. Vornado Realty Trust
55 A.D.3d 574 (Appellate Division of the Supreme Court of New York, 2008)
DuBois v. Roslyn National Mortgage Corp.
52 A.D.3d 564 (Appellate Division of the Supreme Court of New York, 2008)
G.D. Van Wagenen Financial Services, Inc. v. Sichel
43 A.D.3d 1104 (Appellate Division of the Supreme Court of New York, 2007)
Metropolitan Property & Casualty Insurance v. Village of Croton-on-Hudson
32 A.D.3d 380 (Appellate Division of the Supreme Court of New York, 2006)
Iorizzo v. Mattikow
25 A.D.3d 762 (Appellate Division of the Supreme Court of New York, 2006)

Cite This Page — Counsel Stack

Bluebook (online)
12 A.D.3d 662, 784 N.Y.S.2d 875, 2004 N.Y. App. Div. LEXIS 14503, Counsel Stack Legal Research, https://law.counselstack.com/opinion/state-farm-mutual-automobile-insurance-v-rodriguez-nyappdiv-2004.