Terrones v. Morera

295 A.D.2d 254, 743 N.Y.S.2d 860, 2002 N.Y. App. Div. LEXIS 6889
CourtAppellate Division of the Supreme Court of the State of New York
DecidedJune 25, 2002
StatusPublished
Cited by8 cases

This text of 295 A.D.2d 254 (Terrones v. Morera) 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
Terrones v. Morera, 295 A.D.2d 254, 743 N.Y.S.2d 860, 2002 N.Y. App. Div. LEXIS 6889 (N.Y. Ct. App. 2002).

Opinion

—Order, Supreme Court, Bronx County (Anne Targum, J.), entered May 9, 2001, which granted defendants’ motion to dismiss the action on the ground of forum non conveniens, denied plaintiffs’ cross motion for a [255]*255default judgment, and granted defendants’ cross motion to compel plaintiffs to accept service of their answer, unanimously modified, on the law, the facts and in the exercise of discretion, to deny defendants’ motion and reinstate the complaint, and otherwise affirmed, without costs.

Defendants, as proponents of the motion to dismiss on grounds of forum non conveniens, failed to meet their burden to establish that a forum other than New York would be more convenient (see, Islamic Republic of Iran v Pahlavi, 62 NY2d 474, 478-479, cert denied 469 US 1108). Indeed, the relevant factors, including the presence in New York of an important New York City police officer witness, strongly militate in favor of resolving this action in New York rather than New Jersey, the alternative forum proposed by defendants (see, Brodherson v Ponte & Sons, 209 AD2d 276).

Plaintiffs’ motion for a default judgment was, however, properly denied since defendants demonstrated a reasonable excuse for their failure to serve a timely answer (see, CPLR 3012 [d]). Contrary to plaintiffs’ contention, under the circumstances presented, in which no default order or judgment was obtained against defendants, it was not necessary for defendants to serve an affidavit of merit in support of their motion to compel plaintiff to accept service of their answer (Mufalli v Ford Motor Co., 105 AD2d 642, 644). Concur—Nardelli, J.P., Mazzarelli, Rosenberger, Lerner and Marlow, JJ.

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

Related

GE Oil & Gas, Inc. v. Turbine Generation Services, L.L.C.
140 A.D.3d 582 (Appellate Division of the Supreme Court of New York, 2016)
Krieger v. Glatter
129 A.D.3d 536 (Appellate Division of the Supreme Court of New York, 2015)
Verizon New York Inc. v. Case Construction Co.
63 A.D.3d 521 (Appellate Division of the Supreme Court of New York, 2009)
Jones v. 414 Equities LLC
57 A.D.3d 65 (Appellate Division of the Supreme Court of New York, 2008)
Misciagnu v. Ocean Avenue Restaurant, Inc.
33 A.D.3d 566 (Appellate Division of the Supreme Court of New York, 2006)
Guzetti v. City of New York
32 A.D.3d 234 (Appellate Division of the Supreme Court of New York, 2006)
Juseinoski v. Board of Education
15 A.D.3d 353 (Appellate Division of the Supreme Court of New York, 2005)
DeMarco v. Wyndham International, Inc.
299 A.D.2d 209 (Appellate Division of the Supreme Court of New York, 2002)

Cite This Page — Counsel Stack

Bluebook (online)
295 A.D.2d 254, 743 N.Y.S.2d 860, 2002 N.Y. App. Div. LEXIS 6889, Counsel Stack Legal Research, https://law.counselstack.com/opinion/terrones-v-morera-nyappdiv-2002.