Opinion
10-19-2017
A TRUST MORTGAGE, LLC, Plaintiff–Appellant, v. Peter ANDREWS, et al., Defendants–Respondents, Stelis, LLC, Defendant.
Levi Huebner & Associate, PC, Brooklyn (Levi Huebner of Counsel), for appellant. Paul W. Verner, New York, for respondents.
Levi Huebner & Associate, PC, Brooklyn (Levi Huebner of Counsel), for appellant.
Paul W. Verner, New York, for respondents.
As it is clear from the record that defendants intended to contest this matter, and in fact submitted two answers, albeit with technical defects, prior to plaintiff filing the amended complaint, and in light of the lack of prejudice caused to plaintiff by defendants' brief delay in answering the amended complaint, Supreme Court did not abuse its discretion in granting the cross motion to compel plaintiff to accept service of the late answer (see Artcorp Inc. v. Citirich Realty Corp., 140 A.D.3d 417, 30 N.Y.S.3d 872 [1st Dept.2016] ). We have considered appellant's remaining contentions and find them unavailing.
ACOSTA, P.J., FRIEDMAN, WEBBER, OING, and MOULTON, JJ., concur.