Goodman v. New York City Health & Hospitals Corporation
| Decision Date | 15 December 2003 |
| Docket Number | 2003-01403. |
| Court | New York Supreme Court — Appellate Division |
| Parties | DAVID GOODMAN, Appellant, v. NEW YORK CITY HEALTH & HOSPITALS CORPORATION, Respondent. |
Ordered that the order is affirmed, with costs.
In support of his motion for leave to enter judgment against the defendant upon its default in answering, the plaintiff failed to proffer either an affidavit of the facts or a complaint verified by a party with personal knowledge of the facts (see CPLR 3215 [f]; Paz v Long Is. R.R. Co., 204 AD2d 611 [1994]; Drake v Drake, 296 AD2d 566 [2002]; Parratta v McAllister, 283 AD2d 625 [2001]; Fiorino v Yung Poon Yung, 281 AD2d 513 [2001]). Accordingly, the motion was properly denied.
Furthermore, the Supreme Court providently exercised its discretion in granting the defendant's cross motion to compel the plaintiff to accept its answer and in excusing the defendant's delay in serving an answer (see CPLR 2004, 3012 [d]). In view of the absence of any prejudice to the plaintiff, the existence of a possible meritorious defense, the lack of willfulness on the part of the defendant, and the public policy in favor of resolving cases on the merits, we agree with the Supreme Court that, as a matter of discretion, the defendant's delay in answering was properly excused (see Drake v Drake, supra; Calcagno v Magistrelli, 284 AD2d 289 [2001]; Kaiser v Delaney, 255 AD2d 362 [1998]; Van Man Adhesives Corp. v City of New York, 236 AD2d 465 [1997]).
To continue reading
Request your trial
-
Bank of N.Y. v. Mulligan
...made by the party.” (Blam v. Netcher, 17 A.D.3d 495, 496, 793 N.Y.S.2d 464 [2d Dept 2005]; Goodman v. New York City Health & Hosps. Corp. 2 A.D.3d 581, 768 N.Y.S.2d 365[2d Dept 2003]; Drake v. Drake, 296 A.D.2d 566, 745 N.Y.S.2d 712 [2d Dept 2002]; Parratta v. McAllister, 283 A.D.2d 625, 72......
-
Beckford ex rel. McKenzie v. Morse-Spalding
...of the facts or a complaint verified by a party with personal knowledge of the facts (see CPLR 3215[f] ; Goodman v. New York City Health & Hosps. Corp., 2 AD3d 581, 768 N.Y.S.2d 365 ; Drake v. Drake, 296 AD2d 566, 745 N.Y.S.2d 712 ; Parratta v. McAllister, 283 AD2d 625, 725 N.Y.S.2d 854 ). ......
-
Fischer v. City of N.Y.
...535, 536, 833 N.Y.S.2d 187 ; Trimble v. SAS Taxi Co. Inc., 8 A.D.3d 557, 558, 778 N.Y.S.2d 707 ; Goodman v. New York City Health & Hosps. Corp., 2 A.D.3d 581, 582, 768 N.Y.S.2d 365 ). Moreover, the moving defendants demonstrated a meritorious defense (see Methal v. City of New York, 50 A.D.......
-
Youngstown Tube Co. v. Russo
...House, Inc. v. 1789Page 4Central Park Corp., 19 A.D.3d 687, 799 N.Y.S.2d 62 [2d Dep't-2005]; Goodman v. City Health and Hospital Corp., 2 A.D.3d 581, 768 N.Y.S.2d 365 [2ndDept.2003]. Moreover, the law is equally clear, that a defendant who has failed to timely appear and answer a complaint ......