Opinion
8967 Index 104723/09
04-11-2019
CHASE HOME FINANCE, LLC, Plaintiff–Respondent, v. Joseph ADAGO, Defendant–Appellant, 162 JDA, LLC, et al., Defendants.
Petroff Amshen LLP, Brooklyn (Christopher Villanti of counsel), for appellant. Gross Polowy, LLC, Westbury (Alexandria Kaminski of counsel), for respondent.
Petroff Amshen LLP, Brooklyn (Christopher Villanti of counsel), for appellant.
Gross Polowy, LLC, Westbury (Alexandria Kaminski of counsel), for respondent.
Friedman, J.P., Sweeny, Webber, Gesmer, Singh, JJ.
Under the circumstances, we find that the motion court appropriately exercised its discretion when it extended plaintiff's time to serve the complaint in the interest of justice ( Petracca v. Hudson Tower Owners, LLC, 139 A.D.3d 518, 30 N.Y.S.3d 545 [1st Dept. 2016] ). Although plaintiff delayed in seeking an extension, other relevant factors weighed in favor of granting plaintiff's motion, including its demonstration of an alleged meritorious cause of action (see Woods v. M.B.D. Community Hous. Corp., 90 A.D.3d 430, 933 N.Y.S.2d 669 [1st Dept. 2011] ; U.S. Bank N.A. v. Saintus, 153 A.D.3d 1380, 61 N.Y.S.3d 315 [2d Dept. 2017] ) and the fact that defendant cannot demonstrate legal prejudice as he had actual knowledge of the claim since 2009 and participated in numerous court conferences, yet failed to serve an answer (see Petracca v. Hudson Tower Owners LLC, 139 A.D.3d 518, 30 N.Y.S.3d 545 [1st Dept. 2016] ). Furthermore, public policy favors adjudication of actions on the merits (see Hernandez v. Abdul–Salaam, 93 A.D.3d 522, 939 N.Y.S.2d 861 [1st Dept. 2012] ).