Klughaupt v. Hi-Tower Contractors, Inc.
| Decision Date | 07 July 2009 |
| Docket Number | 2009-00420. |
| Citation | 882 N.Y.S.2d 313,2009 NY Slip Op 05750,64 A.D.3d 545 |
| Parties | NECHUMA KLUGHAUPT, Appellant, v. HI-TOWER CONTRACTORS, INC., Defendant, and LYNCH PARK, LLC, Respondent. |
| Court | New York Supreme Court — Appellate Division |
Ordered that the order is affirmed, with costs.
The Supreme Court providently exercised its discretion in denying the plaintiff's motion for leave to enter a default judgment against the defendant Lynch Park, LLC (hereinafter Lynch Park), and in granting Lynch Park's cross motion to vacate its default in answering and for leave to serve a late answer (see CPLR 5015). Considering the lack of any prejudice to the plaintiff as a result of the relatively short three-week delay in serving an answer, the existence of a potentially meritorious defense, and the public policy favoring the resolution of cases on the merits, the Supreme Court properly excused the de minimis delay in answering (see Schonfeld v Blue & White Food Prods. Corp., 29 AD3d 673 [2006]; Yonkers Rib House, Inc. v 1789 Cent. Park Corp., 19 AD3d 687 [2005]; Trimble v SAS Taxi Co. Inc., 8 AD3d 557 [2004]; see e.g. Perez v Linshar Realty Corp., 259 AD2d 532 [1999]; Swidler v World-Wide Volkswagen Corp., 85 AD2d 239 [1982]; cf. Leifer v Pilgreen Corp., 62 AD3d 759 [2009] []).
To continue reading
Request your trial
-
Fried v. Jacob Holding, Inc.
...499;Merchants Ins. Group v. Hudson Val. Fire Protection Co., Inc., 72 A.D.3d 762, 764, 898 N.Y.S.2d 242;Klughaupt v. Hi–Tower Contrs., Inc., 64 A.D.3d 545, 546, 882 N.Y.S.2d 313). The defendant also submitted evidence as to a potentially meritorious defense. This evidence contradicted the p......
-
Dimitriadis v. Visiting Nurse Serv. of N.Y.
...cases on their merits when possible ( see U.S. Bank, N.A. v. Dick, 67 A.D.3d 900, 902, 889 N.Y.S.2d 223; Klughaupt v. Hi–Tower Contrs., Inc., 64 A.D.3d 545, 546, 882 N.Y.S.2d 313; Westchester Med. Ctr. v. Hartford Cas. Ins. Co., 58 A.D.3d 832, 832–833, 872 N.Y.S.2d 196; Moore v. Day, 55 A.D......
-
U.S. Bank Nat'l Ass'n v. Yarbro
...settlement discussions warranted the acceptance of a late answerwhen the delay was de minimis][emphasis added]; Klughaupt v Hi-Tower Contrs., Inc., 64 A.D.3d 545 [2nd Dept 2009] [holding that de minimis delay along with settlement discussions warranted the acceptance of a late answer]; Scar......
-
Arias v. First Presbyterian Church in Jamaica
...leave to enter judgment on the issue of liability against Tick Tock was providently denied ( seeCPLR 2004; 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;Stuart v. Kushner, 39 A.D.3d 535, 536, 833 N.Y.S.2d 1......