Opinion
10176N Index 153561/18
10-22-2019
Rosa PICHARDO, Plaintiff–Appellant, v. 969 AMSTERDAM HOLDINGS, LLC, Defendant–Respondent, The City of New York, Defendant.
Steven C. Rauchberg, P.C., New York (Steven C. Rauchberg of counsel), for appellant. O'Toole Scrivo, LLC, New York (Joseph E. Hopkins of counsel), for respondent.
Steven C. Rauchberg, P.C., New York (Steven C. Rauchberg of counsel), for appellant.
O'Toole Scrivo, LLC, New York (Joseph E. Hopkins of counsel), for respondent.
Renwick, J.P., Gische, Tom, Gesmer, Moulton, JJ.
Order, Supreme Court, New York County (Verna L. Saunders, J.), entered April 30, 2019, which denied plaintiff's motion for a default judgment and directed plaintiff to accept defendant 969 Amsterdam Holdings, LLC's answer, unanimously modified, on the law and the facts, to the extent of striking the jurisdictional defenses from the answer, and otherwise affirmed, without costs.
Under the circumstances of this case, the court properly denied plaintiff's motion for a default judgment and directed plaintiff to accept defendant 969 Amsterdam Holdings, LLC's answer. The delay in answering was relatively short, plaintiff suffered no prejudice, there is no evidence of willfulness and there is a strong public policy in favor of resolving cases onthe merits (see Marine v. Montefiore Health Sys., Inc., 129 A.D.3d 428, 9 N.Y.S.3d 580 [1st Dept. 2015] ; Chevalier v. 368 E. 148th St. Assoc., LLC, 80 A.D.3d 411, 413, 914 N.Y.S.2d 130 (1st Dept. 2011] ) ; Lamar v. City of New York, 68 A.D.3d 449, 888 N.Y.S.2d 883 [1st Dept. 2009] ).
Given that no default judgment had been entered, defendant was not required to demonstrate a meritorious defense (see Marine, 129 A.D.3d at 429, 9 N.Y.S.3d 580 ; Lamar, 68 A.D.3d at 449, 888 N.Y.S.2d 883 ; Nason v. Fisher, 309 A.D.2d 526, 765 N.Y.S.2d 32 [1st Dept. 2003] ; CPLR 3012[d] )