Lipp v. Port Authority of New York and New Jersey
| Decision Date | 21 November 2006 |
| Docket Number | 2006-01718. |
| Citation | 34 A.D.3d 649,824 N.Y.S.2d 671,2006 NY Slip Op 08746 |
| Parties | SUSAN LIPP et al., Appellants, v. PORT AUTHORITY OF NEW YORK AND NEW JERSEY, Respondent. |
| Court | New York Supreme Court — Appellate Division |
Ordered that the order is reversed, on the law and as a matter of discretion, with costs, the motion is denied, the cross motion is granted, and the matter is remitted to the Supreme Court, Queens County, for an inquest on the issue of damages.
A defendant who has failed to timely appear or answer the complaint must provide a reasonable excuse for the default and demonstrate a meritorious defense to the action, when opposing a motion for leave to enter judgment upon its failure to appear or answer and moving to extend the time to answer or to compel the acceptance of an untimely answer (see Juseinoski v Board of Educ. of City of N.Y., 15 AD3d 353, 356 [2005]; Ennis v Lema, 305 AD2d 632, 633 [2003]). In support of its motion, the defendant failed to present any evidence of a meritorious defense. Accordingly, the defendant's motion to extend its time to serve an answer or to compel the acceptance of an untimely answer should have been denied.
The plaintiffs submitted proof of service of the summons and complaint, a factually-detailed verified notice of claim, and an affirmation from their attorney regarding the defendant's default in appearing and answering (see CPLR 3215 [f]). Accordingly, the plaintiffs' cross motion for leave to enter judgment against the defendant should have been granted (see Giovanelli v Rivera, 23 AD3d 616 [2005]; Landaverde v Wroth, 260 AD2d 448 [1999]).
To continue reading
Request your trial
-
Codoner v. Bobby's Bus Co. Inc
...790 N.Y.S.2d 162 (2nd Dept.2005); Ennis v. Lema, 305 A.D.2d 632, 633, 760 N.Y.S.2d 197(2nd Dept.2003)." Lipp v. Port Authority of New York and New Jersey, 34 A.D.3d 649 (2nd Dept. 2006); see, Jamieson v. Roman, 36 A.D.3d 861 (2nd Dept. 2007).Here, defendants did not cross move for an extens......
-
Reed v. Comm'r of Soc. Sec.
...Answer Reed argues that the Commissioner failed to timely file an answer. (ECF No. 15, PageID.1285 (citing Lipp v. Port Auth., 34 A.D.3d 649 (N.Y. Sup. Ct. 2006)). In response, the Commissioner argues that the answer was filed within the time provided by the Federal Rules of Civil Procedure......
-
Valiotis v. Psaroudis
...479, 861 N.Y.S.2d 743; 599 Ralph Ave. Dev., LLC v. 799 Sterling Inc., 34 A.D.3d 726, 825 N.Y.S.2d 129; Lipp v. Port Auth. of N.Y. & N.J., 34 A.D.3d 649, 650, 824 N.Y.S.2d 671). In opposing the plaintiff's motion, the defendant was required to establish both a reasonable excuse for his defau......
-
Maspeth Fed. Sav. and Loan Ass'n v. McGown
...action, when ... moving to extend the time to answer or to compel the acceptance of an untimely answer" ( Lipp v. Port Auth. of N.Y. & N.J., 34 A.D.3d 649, 649, 824 N.Y.S.2d 671; see CPLR 3012[d]; 5015 [a][1]; Moriano v. Provident N.Y. Bancorp, 71 A.D.3d 747, 747, 899 N.Y.S.2d 246;599 Ralph......