Xchange Telecom, LLC v. Knobloch

• Decision Date: 30 November 2022
• Docket Number: 2019–13455,Index No. 524010/18
• Citation: 210 A.D.3d 1130,177 N.Y.S.3d 486 (Mem)
• Parties: XCHANGE TELECOM, LLC, respondent, v. Abe KNOBLOCH, et al., appellants.
• Court: New York Supreme Court — Appellate Division

210 A.D.3d 1130

177 N.Y.S.3d 486 (Mem)

XCHANGE TELECOM, LLC, respondent,

v.Abe KNOBLOCH, et al., appellants.

2019–13455

Index No. 524010/18

Supreme Court, Appellate Division, Second Department, New York.

Argued—September 20, 2022

November 30, 2022

Abrams, Fensterman, Fensterman, Eisman, Formato, Ferrara, Wolf & Carone, LLP, Brooklyn, NY (Andrea J. Caruso, John Cahalan, and Dechert LLP [Michael H. McGinley, pro hac vice], of counsel), for appellants.

Garson Segal Steinmetz Fladgate LLP, New York, NY (Michael Steinmetz of counsel), for respondent.

MARK C. DILLON, J.P., CHERYL E. CHAMBERS, JOSEPH J. MALTESE, HELEN VOUTSINAS, JJ.

DECISION & ORDER

In an action, inter alia, to recover damages for breach of contract, the defendants appeal from an order of the Supreme Court, Kings County (Richard J. Montelione, J.), dated August 20, 2019. The order granted the plaintiff's motion for leave to enter a default judgment against the defendants.

ORDERED that the order is reversed, on the law and in the exercise of discretion, with costs, and the plaintiff's motion for leave to enter a default judgment against the defendants is denied.

Under the circumstances of this case, the Supreme Court improvidently exercised its discretion in granting the plaintiff's motion for leave to enter a default judgment against the defendants. Considering the evidence that the default was not willful, the relatively short delay between the expiration of the defendants' time to answer and the filing of the plaintiff's motion for leave to enter a default judgment, the lack of prejudice to the plaintiff resulting from the delay, the existence of potentially meritorious defenses to the action, and the strong public policy favoring the resolution of cases on the merits, the plaintiff's motion should have been denied (see Pennymac Corp. v. Shelby, 190 A.D.3d 759, 140 N.Y.S.3d 116 ; Grammas v. Lockwood Assoc., LLC, 107 A.D.3d 947, 966 N.Y.S.2d 913 ; Shapiro v. Chawla, 55 A.D.3d 898, 866 N.Y.S.2d 356 ).

DILLON, J.P., CHAMBERS, MALTESE and VOUTSINAS, JJ., concur.