From Casetext: Smarter Legal Research

Kondolf v. National Grange Mutual Insu. Co.

Appellate Division of the Supreme Court of New York, Fourth Department
Mar 31, 1999
(N.Y. App. Div. Mar. 31, 1999)

Opinion

March 31, 1999

Appeal from Order of Supreme Court, Ontario County, Scudder, J. — Default Judgment.

PRESENT: PINE, J. P., HAYES, WISNER, PIGOTT, JR., AND HURLBUTT, JJ.


Order unanimously affirmed without costs. Memorandum: Supreme Court did not abuse its discretion in denying plaintiff's motion for a default judgment pursuant to CPLR 3215 (a) and in granting defendant's cross motion for an order pursuant to CPLR 2004 and 3012 N.Y.C.P.L.R. (d) compelling acceptance of the nswer. Defendant established that its delay in answering the complaint was the result of an inadvertent error of one of its claims representatives ( see, De Nooyer Chevrolet v. Polsinello Fuels, 251 A.D.2d ___ [decided June 18, 1998]; Chu-Reimer v. Metpath, Inc., 227 A.D.2d 860, 861; Jones v. R.S.R. Corp., 135 A.D.2d 900, 901) and that it has a meritorious defense ( see, R.C.S. Farmers Mkts. Corp. v. Great Am. Ins. Co., 56 N.Y.2d 918, 920). There is no proof that the default was willful or that plaintiff was prejudiced by defendant's delay in serving the answer ( see, Heinrichs v. City of Albany, 239 A.D.2d 639). Plaintiff failed to preserve for our review her contention that the court abused its discretion in refusing to order sanctions.


Summaries of

Kondolf v. National Grange Mutual Insu. Co.

Appellate Division of the Supreme Court of New York, Fourth Department
Mar 31, 1999
(N.Y. App. Div. Mar. 31, 1999)
Case details for

Kondolf v. National Grange Mutual Insu. Co.

Case Details

Full title:MARY KONDOLF, PLAINTIFF-APPELLANT, v. NATIONAL GRANGE MUTUAL INSURANCE…

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

Date published: Mar 31, 1999

Citations

(N.Y. App. Div. Mar. 31, 1999)