From Casetext: Smarter Legal Research

Lifsha Spira v. New York

Appellate Division of the Supreme Court of New York, First Department
Mar 27, 2008
49 A.D.3d 478 (N.Y. App. Div. 2008)

Opinion

March 27, 2008.

Order, Supreme Court, New York County (Robert D. Lippmann, J.), entered October 6, 2006, which granted plaintiffs motion for a default judgment, unanimously reversed, on the law, the facts and in the exercise of discretion, without costs, and the motion denied on condition that defendants pay $5,000 to plaintiffs attorneys within 30 days of service of a copy of the order.

Before: Gonzalez, J.P., Williams, Catterson and Moskowitz, JJ.


Under the circumstances, it was an improvident exercise of discretion to grant the default judgment. While defendant's excuse for its default, i.e., law office failure by reason of understaffing, is not particularly compelling, it constitutes "good cause" nonetheless ( Casiano v City of New York, 245 AD2d 244), especially since there is no evidence that plaintiff was prejudiced; on the other hand, defendant will be severely prejudiced if the motion is granted. Moreover, defendant snowed an intent to defend, with its proffer of a stipulation seeking to extend the time to answer before the period expired, and its belated (six months late) service of an answer with a meritorious defense. In our view, this is not an appropriate case for departure from this State's preference for resolving controversies upon the merits.


Summaries of

Lifsha Spira v. New York

Appellate Division of the Supreme Court of New York, First Department
Mar 27, 2008
49 A.D.3d 478 (N.Y. App. Div. 2008)
Case details for

Lifsha Spira v. New York

Case Details

Full title:LIFSHA SPIRA, Respondent, v. NEW YORK CITY TRANSIT AUTHORITY, Appellant

Court:Appellate Division of the Supreme Court of New York, First Department

Date published: Mar 27, 2008

Citations

49 A.D.3d 478 (N.Y. App. Div. 2008)
854 N.Y.S.2d 134

Citing Cases

Rosenblatt v. N.Y.C. Transis Auth.

Defendants demonstrated an excuse of law office failure through the assigned attorney's detailed affirmation…

Velasquez v. N.Y.C. Transit Auth./MTA

Notably, defendant showed an intent to defend when it sought to extend its time to answer by stipulation.…