From Casetext: Smarter Legal Research

Buchholz v. A.L.A.C. Contracting Corp.

Supreme Court, Appellate Division, Second Department, New York.
Nov 12, 2014
122 A.D.3d 660 (N.Y. App. Div. 2014)

Opinion

2014-11-12

Evelyn BUCHHOLZ, et al., appellants, v. A.L.A.C. CONTRACTING CORPORATION, respondent.

Daniel P. Buttafuoco & Associates, PLLC, Woodbury, N.Y. (Ellen Buchholz of counsel), for appellants. Malapero & Prisco, LLP, New York, N.Y. (Frank Lombardo and Robert L. Emmons of counsel), for respondent.



Daniel P. Buttafuoco & Associates, PLLC, Woodbury, N.Y. (Ellen Buchholz of counsel), for appellants. Malapero & Prisco, LLP, New York, N.Y. (Frank Lombardo and Robert L. Emmons of counsel), for respondent.
WILLIAM F. MASTRO, J.P., CHERYL E. CHAMBERS, JEFFREY A. COHEN, and BETSY BARROS, JJ.

In an action to recover damages for personal injuries, etc., the plaintiffs appeal from an order of the Supreme Court, Suffolk County (LaSalle, J.), dated October 2, 2013, which denied their motion pursuant to CPLR 3215 for leave to enter a default judgment against the defendant, and granted the defendant's cross motion pursuant to CPLR 3012(d) to extend its time to appear and answer the complaint and to compel the plaintiffs to accept service of that answer.

ORDERED that the order is affirmed, with costs.

In light of the reasonable excuse for the short delay in appearing and answering the complaint, the lack of prejudice to the plaintiffs resulting from the defendant's short delay in serving an answer, the lack of willfulness on the part of the defendant, and the public policy favoring the resolution of cases on the merits, the Supreme Court providently exercised its discretion in denying the plaintiffs' motion pursuant to CPLR 3215 for leave to enter a default judgment against the defendant, and in granting the defendant's cross motion pursuant to CPLR 3012(d) to extend its time to appear and answer the complaint and to compel the plaintiffs to accept service of that answer, which had been untimely served ( seeCPLR 2004; 3012[d]; Gerdes v. Canales, 74 A.D.3d 1017, 1018, 903 N.Y.S.2d 499; Hosten v. Oladapo, 52 A.D.3d 658, 858 N.Y.S.2d 915; Verde Elec. Corp. v. Federal Ins. Co., 50 A.D.3d 672, 854 N.Y.S.2d 531; Stuart v. Kushner, 39 A.D.3d 535, 833 N.Y.S.2d 187).


Summaries of

Buchholz v. A.L.A.C. Contracting Corp.

Supreme Court, Appellate Division, Second Department, New York.
Nov 12, 2014
122 A.D.3d 660 (N.Y. App. Div. 2014)
Case details for

Buchholz v. A.L.A.C. Contracting Corp.

Case Details

Full title:Evelyn BUCHHOLZ, et al., appellants, v. A.L.A.C. CONTRACTING CORPORATION…

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

Date published: Nov 12, 2014

Citations

122 A.D.3d 660 (N.Y. App. Div. 2014)
122 A.D.3d 660
2014 N.Y. Slip Op. 7612

Citing Cases

Silva v. Progressive Ins. Co.

Plaintiff appeals from an order of the Civil Court which denied his motion pursuant to CPLR 3215 for leave to…

MHC Greenwood Vill. NY, LLC v. Mimar LLC

Alonso v. Lorimik Realty Corp. , 131 AD3d 496, 14 N.Y.S.3d 713–14 (2d Dept 2015). See alsoBuchholz v.…