Summary
finding no abuse of discretion in accepting an opposition to summary judgment that was a day late, where the movant "ha[d] not shown that it suffered any prejudice"
Summary of this case from Phila. Indem. Ins. Co. v. PAR Plumbing, Co.Opinion
March 14, 1995
Appeal from the Supreme Court, New York County (Burton Sherman, J.).
We find no ambiguity in the indemnification provision of the contract between third-party defendant and third-party plaintiff requiring Symplex to indemnify American President Lines (APL) from liability "arising out of User's use, operation, possession or control" of the equipment leased by APL to Symplex. The Agreement, as a whole, indicates that the claim here asserted is the type of claim that the parties intended to be covered by the indemnification provision (Parsons Co. v. Combustion Equip. Assocs., 172 Cal.App.3d 211, 218 Cal.Rptr. 170).
Nor do we find merit to Symplex's argument that the IAS Court abused its discretion by accepting and considering APL's opposition papers and cross motion because they were served one and two days late, respectively (CPLR 2214 [b]; 2215). Symplex has not shown that it suffered any prejudice (Pallette Stone Corp. v. Guyer Bldrs., 194 A.D.2d 1019, 1020).
Concur — Murphy, P.J., Sullivan, Kupferman, Asch and Mazzarelli, JJ.