From Casetext: Smarter Legal Research

Klein v. Chaim

Supreme Court, Appellate Division, Second Department, New York.
Apr 2, 2014
116 A.D.3d 672 (N.Y. App. Div. 2014)

Opinion

2014-04-2

Maty KLEIN, appellant, v. Yeshiva M'Kor CHAIM, et al., respondents.

Herschel Kulefsky (Ephrem J. Wertenteil, New York, N.Y., of counsel), for appellant. Gannon, Resenfarb, Balletti & Drossman, New York, N.Y. (Lisa L. Gokhulsingh of counsel), for respondents Yeshiva M'Kor Chaim and Gutman Management Co., Inc.


Herschel Kulefsky (Ephrem J. Wertenteil, New York, N.Y., of counsel), for appellant. Gannon, Resenfarb, Balletti & Drossman, New York, N.Y. (Lisa L. Gokhulsingh of counsel), for respondents Yeshiva M'Kor Chaim and Gutman Management Co., Inc.
Carman, Callahan & Ingham, LLP, Farmingdale, N.Y. (Tracy S. Reifer of counsel), for respondent Tovar Transportation, Inc.

In an action to recover damages for personal injuries, the plaintiff appeals from an order of the Supreme Court, Kings County (Spodek, J.), dated February 8, 2012, which denied her motion pursuant to CPLR 3215 for leave to enter a default judgment against the defendants upon their failure to timely appear or answer the complaint and granted the separate cross motions of the defendants Yeshiva M'Kor Chaim and Tovar Transportation, Inc., and the defendants Yeshiva M'Kor Chaim and Gutman Management Co., Inc., pursuant to CPLR 3012(d) to compel the plaintiff to accept their untimely answers.

ORDERED that the order is affirmed, with costs.

In light of the lack of prejudice to the plaintiff resulting from the defendants' short delay in answering the complaint, the lack of willfulness on the part of the defendants, the existence of potentially meritorious defenses, and the public policy favoring the resolution of cases on the merits, the Supreme Court providently exercised its discretion in denying the plaintiff's motion pursuant to CPLR 3215 for leave to enter a default judgment against the defendants and in granting the defendants' separate cross motions pursuant to CPLR 3012(d) to compel the plaintiff to accept their untimely answers ( seeCPLR 2004, 3012[d]; Vellucci v. Home Depot U.S.A., Inc., 102 A.D.3d 767, 767–768, 957 N.Y.S.2d 874;Arias v First Presbyt. Church in Jamaica, 97 A.D.3d 712, 713, 948 N.Y.S.2d 665;Covaci v. Whitestone Constr. Corp., 78 A.D.3d 1108, 911 N.Y.S.2d 652). BALKIN, J.P., LOTT, ROMAN and MILLER, JJ., concur.


Summaries of

Klein v. Chaim

Supreme Court, Appellate Division, Second Department, New York.
Apr 2, 2014
116 A.D.3d 672 (N.Y. App. Div. 2014)
Case details for

Klein v. Chaim

Case Details

Full title:Maty KLEIN, appellant, v. Yeshiva M'Kor CHAIM, et al., respondents.

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

Date published: Apr 2, 2014

Citations

116 A.D.3d 672 (N.Y. App. Div. 2014)
2014 N.Y. Slip Op. 2265
982 N.Y.S.2d 787

Citing Cases

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.…

Marcelli v. Lorraine Arms Apartments, LLC

The plaintiff appeals.In light of the lack of prejudice to the plaintiff resulting from the defendants' short…