Moriano v. Provident N.Y. Bancorp

Decision Date09 March 2010
Citation71 A.D.3d 747,899 N.Y.S.2d 246
PartiesPatricia MORIANO, etc., respondent, v. PROVIDENT NEW YORK BANCORP, appellant.
CourtNew York Supreme Court — Appellate Division

McGivney & Kluger, P.C., New York, N.Y. (Kenneth S. Ross of counsel), for appellant.

Jacobowitz & Gubits, LLP, Walden, N.Y. (David Gandin of counsel), for respondent.

REINALDO E. RIVERA, J.P., ANITA R. FLORIO, THOMAS A. DICKERSON, ARIEL E. BELEN, and SHERI S. ROMAN, JJ.

In an action to recover damages for breach of a lease, the defendant appeals from an order of the Supreme Court, Orange County (Slobod, J.), dated September 8, 2009, which, in effect, denied its motion, inter alia, to compel the plaintiff to accept its late answer.

ORDERED that the order is affirmed, with costs.

"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" ( Lipp v. Port Auth. of N.Y. & N.J., 34 A.D.3d 649, 649, 824 N.Y.S.2d 671; see Juseinoski v. Board of Educ. of City of N.Y., 15 A.D.3d 353, 356, 790 N.Y.S.2d 162). Here, the Supreme Court providently exercised its discretion in denying the defendant's motion, inter alia, to compel the plaintiff to acceptits late answer, since it failed to demonstrate the existence of a meritorious defense to the action ( see Baldwin v. Mateogarcia, 57 A.D.3d 594, 595, 869 N.Y.S.2d 217; Cortlandt Healthcare, LLC v. Gantt, 54 A.D.3d 799, 800, 863 N.Y.S.2d 769; Lipp v. Port Auth. of N.Y. & N.J., 34 A.D.3d at 649-650, 824 N.Y.S.2d 671; Juseinoski v. Board of Educ. of City of N.Y., 15 A.D.3d at 357-358, 790 N.Y.S.2d 162).

To continue reading

Request your trial
13 cases
  • Maspeth Fed. Sav. and Loan Ass'n v. McGown
    • United States
    • New York Supreme Court — Appellate Division
    • October 26, 2010
    ...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;909 N.Y.S.2d 404599 Ralph Ave. Dev., LLC v. 799 Sterling Inc., 34 A.D.3d 726, 726, 825 N.Y.S.2d 129). The determination ......
  • Maspeth Fed. Sav. and Loan Ass'n v. McGown
    • United States
    • New York Supreme Court — Appellate Division
    • October 26, 2010
    ...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 Ave. Dev., LLC v. 799 Sterling Inc., 34 A.D.3d 726, 726, 825 N.Y.S.2d 129). The determination of what constit......
  • People v. Geller
    • United States
    • New York Supreme Court — Appellate Division
    • March 9, 2010
  • U.S. Bank Nat'l Ass'n v. Yarbro
    • United States
    • New York Supreme Court
    • March 22, 2013
    ...of the Supreme Court." (Maspeth Federal Sav. and Loan Ass'n v. McGown, 77 A.D.3d 890, 891 [2nd Dept 2010]; Moriano v. Provident New York Bancorp, 71 A.D.3d 747 [2nd Dept 2010].) It is undisputed that the defendants were served with the Summons and Complaint on March 11, 2009. The within mot......
  • Request a trial to view additional results

VLEX uses login cookies to provide you with a better browsing experience. If you click on 'Accept' or continue browsing this site we consider that you accept our cookie policy. ACCEPT