From Casetext: Smarter Legal Research

M.S. Hi-Tech, Inc. v. Thompson

Appellate Division of the Supreme Court of New York, Second Department
Nov 14, 2005
23 A.D.3d 442 (N.Y. App. Div. 2005)

Opinion

2003-10447.

November 14, 2005.

In action, inter alia, to recover damages for breach of contract, the defendant appeals from an order of the Supreme Court, Suffolk County (Henry, J.), dated October 20, 2003, which granted the plaintiff's motion pursuant to 22 NYCRR 202.27 (a) for leave to enter judgment upon his default in appearing at a compliance conference.

Donald J. Thompson, Jr., Lindenhurst, N.Y., appellant pro se.

Before: Schmidt, J.P., S. Miller, Mastro, Spolzino and Lunn, JJ., concur.


Ordered that the order is reversed, on the law, with costs, and the motion is denied.

The defendant's affidavit presented a reasonable excuse for his failure to appear at the compliance conference purportedly scheduled for June 17, 2003, based on his lack of notice of the compliance conference. The record does not contain any evidence that the defendant received notice of the conference. Additionally, the record contains verified pleadings by the defendant which suggest the possibility of a meritorious defense. Moreover, there is no indication that the defendant's failure to appear at the compliance conference was deliberate, or that it caused the plaintiff to suffer prejudice. Under the circumstances, and considering that public policy favors resolution of cases on the merits, the Supreme Court should have denied the plaintiff's motion ( cf. Cazeau v. Paul, 2 AD3d 477, 478; Reices v. Catholic Med. Ctr. of Brooklyn Queens, 306 AD2d 394; see generally Lopez v. Imperial Delivery Serv., 282 AD2d 190, 197).


Summaries of

M.S. Hi-Tech, Inc. v. Thompson

Appellate Division of the Supreme Court of New York, Second Department
Nov 14, 2005
23 A.D.3d 442 (N.Y. App. Div. 2005)
Case details for

M.S. Hi-Tech, Inc. v. Thompson

Case Details

Full title:M.S. HI-TECH, INC., Respondent, v. DONALD J. THOMPSON, JR., Appellant

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

Date published: Nov 14, 2005

Citations

23 A.D.3d 442 (N.Y. App. Div. 2005)
2005 N.Y. Slip Op. 8688
808 N.Y.S.2d 122

Citing Cases

Vera v. Soohoo

Furthermore, the Hospital and Malhotra would not have been prejudiced by adjourning the matter to the middle…

U.S. Bank, Nat'l Ass'n v. Calvanico

Although, in reality, only the foreclosure action had been discontinued and the reformation action was still…