Wiesel v. Friends Exhaust Systems, Inc.

Appellate Division of the Supreme Court of New York

Wiesel v. Friends Exhaust Systems, Inc.

71 A.D.3d 1006, 896 N.Y.S.2d 887

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

DecidedMarch 23, 2010

StatusPublished

Cited by4 cases

This text of 71 A.D.3d 1006 (Wiesel v. Friends Exhaust Systems, Inc.) 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

Wiesel v. Friends Exhaust Systems, Inc., 71 A.D.3d 1006, 896 N.Y.S.2d 887 (N.Y. Ct. App. 2010).

Pincite

Opinion

In an action to recover damages for personal injuries, the plaintiff appeals, as limited by her brief, from so much of an order of the Supreme Court, Kings County (Miller, J.), dated November 3, 2008, as denied those branches of her motion which were pursuant to CPLR 3215 for leave to enter judgment against the defendants T & S Food Market Corp. and Haros Realty Corp., upon their respective defaults in appearing or [1007]*1007answering the complaint, granted the cross motion of the defendant Haros Realty Corp. pursuant to CPLR 2004 and 3012 (d) to compel her to accept late service of its answer or to extend its time to answer the complaint, and, in effect, granted that branch of the separate cross motion of the defendant T & S Food Market Corp. which was pursuant to CPLR 3012 (d) to compel her to accept late service of its answer.

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

The Supreme Court providently exercised its discretion in denying those branches of the plaintiff’s motion which were pursuant to CPLR 3215 for leave to enter a default judgment against the defendants T & S Food Market Corp. and Haros Realty Corp., upon their respective defaults in appearing or answering the complaint, in granting the cross motion of the defendant Haros Realty Corp. pursuant to CPLR 2004 and 3012 (d) to compel the plaintiff to accept late service of its answer or to extend its time to answer the complaint, and, in effect, in granting that branch of the separate cross motion of the defendant T & S Food Market Corp. which was pursuant to CPLR 3012 (d) to compel the plaintiff to accept late service of its answer. “Considering the lack of any prejudice to the plaintiff as a result of the relatively short delay[s], the existence of potentially meritorious defenses, and the public policy favoring the resolution of cases on the merits, the Supreme Court properly excused the [respondents’] delay in answering” (Falla v Keel Holdings, LLC, 50 AD3d 844, 845 [2008]; see A & C Constr. Inc. of N.Y. v Flanagan, 34 AD3d 510, 510 [2006]).

The plaintiff’s remaining contentions are without merit. Rivera, J.P., Florio, Miller, Chambers and Roman, JJ., concur.

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

In an action to recover damages for personal injuries, the plaintiff appeals, as limited by her brief, from so much of an order of the Supreme Court, Kings County (Miller, J.), dated November 3, 2008, as denied those branches of her motion which were pursuant to CPLR 3215 for leave to enter judgment against the defendants T & S Food Market Corp. and Haros Realty Corp., upon their respective defaults in appearing or [1007]*1007answering the complaint, granted the cross motion of the defendant Haros Realty Corp. pursuant to CPLR 2004 and 3012 (d) to compel her to accept late service of its answer or to extend its time to answer the complaint, and, in effect, granted that branch of the separate cross motion of the defendant T & S Food Market Corp. which was pursuant to CPLR 3012 (d) to compel her to accept late service of its answer.

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

The Supreme Court providently exercised its discretion in denying those branches of the plaintiff’s motion which were pursuant to CPLR 3215 for leave to enter a default judgment against the defendants T & S Food Market Corp. and Haros Realty Corp., upon their respective defaults in appearing or answering the complaint, in granting the cross motion of the defendant Haros Realty Corp. pursuant to CPLR 2004 and 3012 (d) to compel the plaintiff to accept late service of its answer or to extend its time to answer the complaint, and, in effect, in granting that branch of the separate cross motion of the defendant T & S Food Market Corp. which was pursuant to CPLR 3012 (d) to compel the plaintiff to accept late service of its answer. “Considering the lack of any prejudice to the plaintiff as a result of the relatively short delay[s], the existence of potentially meritorious defenses, and the public policy favoring the resolution of cases on the merits, the Supreme Court properly excused the [respondents’] delay in answering” (Falla v Keel Holdings, LLC, 50 AD3d 844, 845 [2008]; see A & C Constr. Inc. of N.Y. v Flanagan, 34 AD3d 510, 510 [2006]).

The plaintiff’s remaining contentions are without merit. Rivera, J.P., Florio, Miller, Chambers and Roman, JJ., concur.

Cite This Page — Counsel Stack

Bluebook (online)

71 A.D.3d 1006, 896 N.Y.S.2d 887, Counsel Stack Legal Research, https://law.counselstack.com/opinion/wiesel-v-friends-exhaust-systems-inc-nyappdiv-2010.

Opinion

Related

Cite This Page — Counsel Stack