Opinion
No. 2015–1708 K C.
05-12-2017
Jhon Mendoza SILVA, Appellant, v. PROGRESSIVE INSURANCE COMPANY, Respondent.
Law Offices of Melissa Betancourt, P.C. (Melissa Betancourt, Esq.), for appellant. Adams, Hanson, Rego & Kaplan (Joan A. Reyes, Esq.), for respondent.
Law Offices of Melissa Betancourt, P.C. (Melissa Betancourt, Esq.), for appellant. Adams, Hanson, Rego & Kaplan (Joan A. Reyes, Esq.), for respondent.
Present: MARTIN M. SOLOMON, J.P., MICHAEL L. PESCE, DAVID ELLIOT, JJ.
Appeal from an order of the Civil Court of the City of New York, Kings County (Steven Z. Mostofsky, J.), entered July 2, 2015. The order denied plaintiff's motion for leave to enter a default judgment and granted the branch of defendant's cross motion seeking to compel plaintiff to accept a late answer.
ORDERED that the order is affirmed, without costs.
In this action to recover damages pursuant to the collision coverage provision of an automobile insurance policy, service of process was made on defendant at a corporate office in Nassau County, NY, by personal delivery to one of defendant's claim processors. Plaintiff appeals from an order of the Civil Court which denied his motion pursuant to CPLR 3215 for leave to enter a default judgment and granted the branch of defendant's cross motion, pursuant to CPLR 3012(d), seeking to compel plaintiff to accept a late answer.
In light of the lack of prejudice to plaintiff, the lack of willfulness on the part of defendant—given the fact that defendant timely mailed an answer (see CCA 402[b] [if a summons is served by any means other than personal delivery within the City of New York, the defendant must appear and answer within 30 days after proof of service is filed with the court clerk] ) albeit to an incorrect address—and the public policy favoring the resolution of cases on the merits, we find that the Civil Court did not improvidently exercise its discretion in denying plaintiff's motion for leave to enter a default judgment and granting the branch of defendant's cross motion seeking to compel plaintiff to accept its late answer (see Buchholz v. A.L.A.C. Contr. Corp., 122 AD3d 660 [2014] ; Darlind Constr., Inc. v. Prism Solar Tech., Inc., 109 AD3d 783, 783–784 [2013] ; Hosten v. Oladapo, 52 AD3d 658, 658–659 [2008] ; Bunch v. Dollar Budget, Inc., 12 AD3d 391 [2004] ).
Accordingly, the order is affirmed.
SOLOMON, J.P., PESCE and ELLIOT, JJ., concur.