From Casetext: Smarter Legal Research

Kaiser v. Delaney

Appellate Division of the Supreme Court of New York, Second Department
Nov 9, 1998
255 A.D.2d 362 (N.Y. App. Div. 1998)

Opinion

November 9, 1998

Appeal from the Supreme Court, Suffolk County (Henry, J.).


Ordered that the order is affirmed insofar as appealed from, with costs.

The Supreme Court providently exercised its discretion in compelling the plaintiffs to accept the verified answer of South Bay Water Taxi and John Sanders, which was untimely served ( see, CPLR 3012 [d]; Mondrone v. Lakeview Auto Sales Serv., 170 A.D.2d 586). Considering the absence of prejudice to the plaintiffs the meritorious nature of the defense, and the public policy in favor of resolving cases on the merits, we agree that the 2 1/2-month delay in serving the answer should be excused ( see, CPLR 2005; Van Man Adhesives Corp. v. City of New York, 236 A.D.2d 465; Albin v. First Nationwide Network Mtge. Co., 188 A.D.2d 575; I.J. Handa, P. C. v. Imperato, 159 A.D.2d 484).

Mangano P. J., Joy, Friedmann and Goldstein, JJ., concur.


Summaries of

Kaiser v. Delaney

Appellate Division of the Supreme Court of New York, Second Department
Nov 9, 1998
255 A.D.2d 362 (N.Y. App. Div. 1998)
Case details for

Kaiser v. Delaney

Case Details

Full title:THOMAS KAISER et al., Appellants, v. BRYAN DELANEY et al., Respondents

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

Date published: Nov 9, 1998

Citations

255 A.D.2d 362 (N.Y. App. Div. 1998)
679 N.Y.S.2d 686

Citing Cases

Li v. Caruso

Under the circumstances, including that upon being served, the defendant sent the complaint to his personal…

Yi Jing Tan v. Liang

Plaintiffs failed to demonstrate how it was prejudiced by the delay. The Appellate Division, Second…