Covaci v. Whitestone Const. Corp.
| Decision Date | 30 November 2010 |
| Citation | 911 N.Y.S.2d 652,78 A.D.3d 1108 |
| Parties | Daniel COVACI, et al., appellants, v. WHITESTONE CONSTRUCTION CORP., respondent. |
| Court | New York Supreme Court — Appellate Division |
Harry I. Katz, P.C. (Shayne, Dachs, Corker, Sauer & Dachs, LLP, Mineola, N.Y. [Jonathan A. Dachs], of counsel), for appellants.
Rafter & Associates, PLLC, New York, N.Y. (Howard K. Fishman of counsel), for respondent.
In an action to recover damages for personal injuries, etc., the plaintiffs appeal from an order of the Supreme Court, Queens County (Sampson, J.), dated October 8, 2009, which denied their motion for leave to enter a judgment against the defendant upon the defendant's failure to appear or answer and granted the defendant's cross motion pursuant to CPLR 3012(d) to compel them to accept a late answer.
ORDERED that the order is affirmed, with costs.
The Supreme Court providently exercised its discretion in denying the plaintiffs' motion for leave to enter a judgment against the defendant upon its failure to appear or answer, and in granting the defendant's cross motion to compel the plaintiffs to accept its late answer ( see CPLR 2004, 3012 [d] ). Four days after the time to serve an answer had expired, the defendant requested an extension of time from the plaintiffs to serve an answer, and the defendant promptly moved to vacate its default after the request was declined ( see Sitigus Foods Corp. v. 72-02 N. Blvd. Realty Corp., 293 A.D.2d 597, 740 N.Y.S.2d 219; Buderwitz v. Cunningham, 101 A.D.2d 821, 822, 475 N.Y.S.2d 300). In light of the lack of prejudice to the plaintiffs as a result of the relatively short 25-day delay in serving an answer, the existence of a potentially meritorious defense, the lack of willfulness on the part of the defendant, and the public policy favoring the resolution of cases on the merits, the Supreme Court providently excused the de minimis delay in answering ( see Klughaupt v. Hi-Tower Contrs., Inc., 64 A.D.3d 545, 546, 882 N.Y.S.2d 313; Finkelstein v. Sunshine, 47 A.D.3d 882, 852 N.Y.S.2d 168;Schonfeld v Blue & White Food Prods. Corp., 29 A.D.3d 673, 814 N.Y.S.2d 711).
To continue reading
Request your trial
-
Herzog v. Belizario
...Constr., Inc. v. Prism Solar Tech., Inc., 109 A.D.3d 783, 783, 971 N.Y.S.2d 119 [2d Dept.2013] ; Covaci v. Whitestone Constr. Corp., 78 A.D.3d 1108, 1108, 911 N.Y.S.2d 652 [2d Dept.2010] ; Sitigus Foods Corp. v. 72–02 N. Blvd. Realty Corp., 293 A.D.2d 597, 597, 740 N.Y.S.2d 219 [2d Dept.200......
-
Hutchinson v.
...the answer was rejected ( see EHS Quickstops Corp. v. GRJH, Inc., 112 A.D.3d 577, 976 N.Y.S.2d 171;Covaci v. Whitestone Constr. Corp., 78 A.D.3d 1108, 911 N.Y.S.2d 652;Sitigus Foods Corp. v. 72–02 N. Blvd. Realty Corp., 293 A.D.2d 597, 740 N.Y.S.2d 219;Buderwitz v. Cunningham, 101 A.D.2d 82......
-
Arias v. First Presbyterian Church in Jamaica
...an answer. Tick Tock acted diligently and never intended to abandon its defense or counterclaim ( see Covaci v. Whitestone Constr. Corp., 78 A.D.3d 1108, 911 N.Y.S.2d 652; Sitigus Foods Corp. v. 72–02 N. Blvd. Realty Corp., 293 A.D.2d 597, 740 N.Y.S.2d 219;Buderwitz v. Cunningham, 101 A.D.2......
-
Dmytryszyn v. Herschman
...N.Y.S.2d 10778 A.D.3d 1108John DMYTRYSZYN, etc., respondent,v.Zvi HERSCHMAN, etc., appellant, et al., defendants.Supreme Court, Appellate Division, Second Department, New York.Nov. 30, 2010.912 N.Y.S.2d 107 Kopff, Nardelli & Dopf LLP, New York, N.Y. (Martin B. Adams of counsel), for appella......