Merchants Ins. Group v. Hudson Valley Fire Prot. Co., Inc.
| Citation | 72 A.D.3d 762,898 N.Y.S.2d 242 |
| Parties | MERCHANTS INSURANCE GROUP, etc., respondent, v. HUDSON VALLEY FIRE PROTECTION CO., INC., appellant. |
| Decision Date | 13 April 2010 |
| Court | New York Supreme Court Appellate Division |
Wilson Elser Moskowitz Edelman & Dicker, LLP, New York, N.Y. (Richard E. Lerner and Judy C. Selmeci of counsel), for appellant.
Albert A. Hatem, P.C., White Plains, N.Y., for respondent.
PETER B. SKELOS, J.P., MARK C. DILLON, DANIEL D. ANGIOLILLO, RANDALL T. ENG, and SANDRA L. SGROI, JJ.
In a subrogation action to recover amounts paid by the plaintiff to its insured for injury to property, the defendant appealsfrom an order of the Supreme Court, Westchester County, (Lefkowitz, J.) entered October 27, 2009, which granted theplaintiff's motion for leave to enter judgment upon its default in appearing or answering and denied its application to compel the plaintiff to accept the answer.
ORDERED that on the Court's own motion, the defendant's notice of appeal from so much of the order as denied its application to compel the plaintiff to accept the answer is treated as an application for leave to appeal from that portion of the order, and leave to appeal is granted ( see CPLR 5701[c] ); and it is further,
ORDERED that the order is reversed, on the facts and in the exercise of discretion, without costs or disbursements, the plaintiff's motion for leave to enter judgment upon the defendant's default in appearing or answering is denied, the defendant's application to compel the plaintiff to accept the answer is granted, and the answer annexed to the defendant's papers in opposition to the plaintiff's motion is deemed served upon the plaintiff.
The summons and complaint in this action were served on the defendant pursuant to Business Corporation Law § 306 in February 2009, and the plaintiff mailed to the defendant a notice of default pursuant to CPLR 3215 at approximately the same time. When no answer was served, the plaintiff moved on August 3, 2009, for leave to enter a default judgment. Although the defendant did not cross-move to vacate the default, it opposed the motion and requested that the court compel the plaintiff to accept the answer annexed to its opposition papers. The Supreme Court granted the plaintiff's motion and denied the defendant's application, finding that the defendant had not shown a meritorious defense or an excusable default. We reverse.
In opposition to the plaintiff's motion for a default judgment, the defendant's president asserted in his affidavit that he forwarded the summons and complaint on March 13, 2009, within two weeks of the defendant's receipt of the summons and complaint, to an insurance broker "with the expectation that defense counsel would be assigned" and that he only became aware of the default after receipt of the motion for a default judgment...
To continue reading
Request your trial
-
Fried v. Jacob Holding, Inc.
...discretion ( see Gerdes v. Canales, 74 A.D.3d 1017, 1018, 903 N.Y.S.2d 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......
-
Garcia v. First Fid. Mortg. Grp. LLC
...LLC v. Horowitz, 88 A.D.3d 992, 931 N.Y.S.2d 536 (2d Dept., 2011); Merchants Ins. Group v. Hudson Valley Fire Protection Co. Inc., 72 A.D.3d 762, 898 N.Y.S.2d 242 [2d Dept., 2010]), and whether to vacate a default is a matter addressed to the sound discretion of the trial court (Dimitriadis......
-
Ceo Bus. Brokers, Inc. v. Alqabili
...for the initial two-month delay in retaining their current attorney ( see Merchants Ins. Group v. Hudson Val. Fire Protection Co., Inc., 72 A.D.3d 762, 763, 898 N.Y.S.2d 242), the [963 N.Y.S.2d 712]subsequently retained attorney failed to proffer a reasonable excuse for the further four-mon......
-
Trepel v. Greenman–Pedersen, Inc.
...v. Shubert Org., Inc., 80 A.D.3d at 636, 914 N.Y.S.2d 681;cf. Merchants Ins. Group v. Hudson Val. Fire Protection Co., Inc., 72 A.D.3d 762, 898 N.Y.S.2d 242). [99 A.D.3d 792]In view of the absence of a reasonable excuse, it is unnecessary to consider whether Promo–Pro sufficiently demonstra......