Leifer v. Pilgreen Corporation
| Decision Date | 12 May 2009 |
| Docket Number | 2008-00613. |
| Citation | 878 N.Y.S.2d 451,62 A.D.3d 759,2009 NY Slip Op 03872 |
| Parties | ZALMAN LEIFER et al., Appellants, v. PILGREEN CORPORATION, Respondent. |
| Court | New York Supreme Court — Appellate Division |
Ordered that the order is reversed, on the law, on the facts and in the exercise of discretion, with costs, the plaintiffs' motion is granted, the defendant's cross motion is denied, and the matter is remitted to the Supreme Court, Kings County, for an inquest on the issue of damages.
It is uncontested that the defendant failed to timely serve its answer. The stipulation extending its time to do so expired in October 2006 and no extension thereof was granted or even sought. Thus, in order to successfully oppose the plaintiffs' motion for leave to enter a default judgment against it, the defendant was required to demonstrate a justifiable excuse for its default and the existence of a meritorious defense (see CPLR 5015 [a] [1]; Kouzios v Dery, 57 AD3d 949 [2008]; Mjahdi v Maguire, 21 AD3d 1067, 1068 [2005]; cf. Giovanelli v Rivera, 23 AD3d 616 [2005]). The defendant failed to do so.
The defendant's insurance carrier's long delay before defending this action, without more, was insufficient to establish a reasonable excuse for the default (see Martinez v D'Alessandro Custom Bldrs. & Demolition, Inc., 52 AD3d 786, 787 [2008]; Segovia v Delcon Constr. Corp., 43 AD3d 1143 [2007]; Lemberger v Congregation Yetev Lev D'Satmar, Inc., 33 AD3d 671, 672 [2006]). Additionally, the defendant failed to demonstrate the existence of a meritorious defense. Accordingly, the plaintiffs' motion for leave to enter a default judgment and to set the matter down for an inquest should have been granted and the defendant's cross motion for leave to serve a late answer nunc pro tunc should have been denied (see CPLR 3012 [d]).
Furthermore, the court erred in deeming the issue of timeliness of the answer waived by the plaintiffs' withdrawal of their prior motion for a default judgment. After the...
To continue reading
Request your trial
-
Walley v. Leatherstocking Healthcare, LLC
...carrier delay, we conclude that defendant did not establish a reasonable excuse for an untimely answer ( see Leifer v. Pilgreen Corp., 62 A.D.3d 759, 760, 878 N.Y.S.2d 451 [2009]; Martinez v. D'Alessandro Custom Bldrs. & Demolition, Inc., 52 A.D.3d 786, 787, 861 N.Y.S.2d 737 [2008]; Lemberg......
-
Lane v. Smith
...defense to the action ( seeCPLR 5015[a][1]; Assael v. 15 Broad St., LLC, 71 A.D.3d 802, 803, 896 N.Y.S.2d 459;Leifer v. Pilgreen Corp., 62 A.D.3d 759, 760, 878 N.Y.S.2d 451;Star Indus., Inc. v. Innovative Beverages, Inc., 55 A.D.3d 903, 904, 866 N.Y.S.2d 357). The determination of what cons......
-
Ogman v. Mastrantonio Catering, Inc.
...Manor Owners Corp., 73 A.D.3d 713, 900 N.Y.S.2d 359; Gross v. Kail, 70 A.D.3d 997, 998, 893 N.Y.S.2d 891; Leifer v. Pilgreen Corp., 62 A.D.3d 759, 760, 878 N.Y.S.2d 451; Kouzios v. Dery, 57 A.D.3d 949, 871 N.Y.S.2d 303). The affirmation of the defendant's president, which was submitted in a......
-
Maida v. Lessing's Rest. Serv., Inc.
...Inc., 71 A.D.3d 631, 632, 896 N.Y.S.2d 415; Kramer v. Oil Servs., Inc., 65 A.D.3d 523, 524, 882 N.Y.S.2d 906; Leifer v. Pilgreen Corp., 62 A.D.3d 759, 760, 878 N.Y.S.2d 451; Martinez v. D'Alessandro Custom Bldrs. & Demolition, Inc., 52 A.D.3d 786, 787, 861 N.Y.S.2d 737; Segovia v. Delcon Co......