Opinion
16685 Index No. 157008/21 Case No. 2022–02621
11-17-2022
In the Matter of THOMAS ANTHONY HOLDINGS LLC, Petitioner–Respondent, v. Bridget GOODBODY et al., Respondents–Appellants.
Kane Kessler, P.C., New York (David A. Gold of counsel), for appellants. Tuttle Yick LLP, New York (Eli D. Raider of counsel), for respondent.
Kane Kessler, P.C., New York (David A. Gold of counsel), for appellants.
Tuttle Yick LLP, New York (Eli D. Raider of counsel), for respondent.
Kern, J.P., Scarpulla, Rodriguez, Pitt, Higgitt, JJ.
Order, Supreme Court, New York County (Verna L. Saunders, J.), entered on or about February 24, 2022, which denied respondents’ motion for a default judgment on their counterclaims pursuant to CPLR 3012(d) and granted petitioner's cross motion to serve a late reply to the counterclaims pursuant to CPLR 3215, unanimously affirmed, with costs.
The court providently exercised its discretion in granting petitioner's cross motion to serve a late reply to respondents’ counterclaims, and denying as moot respondent's motion for a default judgment on the counterclaims, especially in view of the strong public policy to dispose of cases on their merits (see HSBC Bank USA v. Lugo, 127 A.D.3d 502, 9 N.Y.S.3d 6 [1st Dept. 2015] ). Although petitioner's excuse that it overlooked the counterclaims in respondents’ answer was "hardly overwhelming," it was adequate given that the delay was minimal, was not willful, and did not prejudice respondents ( Jones v. 414 Equities LLC, 57 A.D.3d 65, 81, 866 N.Y.S.2d 165 [1st Dept. 2008] ; see generally Emigrant Bank v. Rosabianca, 156 A.D.3d 468, 472–473, 67 N.Y.S.3d 175 [1st Dept. 2017] ). Furthermore, petitioner demonstrated potentially meritorious defenses to the counterclaims (see Emigrant Bank, 156 A.D.3d at 473, 67 N.Y.S.3d 175 ).