Opinion
02-16-2017
David MEMA, et al., Plaintiffs–Respondents, v. 25 BROADWAY REALTY doing business as The Wolfson Group, et al., Defendants, One State Street, LLC, Defendant–Appellant.
Cartafalsa, Slattery, Turpin & Lenoff, New York (Carolyn Comparato of counsel), for appellant. Daniel J. Costello, Staten Island, for respondents.
Cartafalsa, Slattery, Turpin & Lenoff, New York (Carolyn Comparato of counsel), for appellant.
Daniel J. Costello, Staten Island, for respondents.
Order, Supreme Court, New York County (James E. d'Auguste, J.), entered December 17, 2015, which denied defendant One State Street, LLC's (One State Street) motion to vacate its default, extend its time to serve an answer, and compel plaintiff to accept service of the answer nunc pro tunc, unanimously reversed, on the law and the facts, without costs, and the motion granted.
Supreme Court correctly determined that the affidavit One State Street submitted in support of its motion sufficiently demonstrated that it did not personally receive the summons and complaint in time to defend, but erred when it determined that One State Street did not present a meritorious defense (CPLR 317 ; see Marte v. 102–06 43 Ave., LLC, 135 A.D.3d 457, 24 N.Y.S.3d 236 [1st Dept.2016] ; see Ortiz v. City of New York, 103 A.D.3d 468, 469, 960 N.Y.S.2d 11 [1st Dept.2013] ).
FRIEDMAN, J.P., MAZZARELLI, ANDRIAS, FEINMAN, GESMER, JJ., concur.