From Casetext: Smarter Legal Research

Tertiary, Inc. v. Liberty Mut. Fire Ins. Co.

Supreme Court, Appellate Division, First Department, New York.
Feb 8, 2018
158 A.D.3d 482 (N.Y. App. Div. 2018)

Opinion

5677N Index 156930/15

02-08-2018

TERTIARY, INC., Plaintiff–Respondent, v. LIBERTY MUTUAL FIRE INSURANCE COMPANY, et al., Defendants–Appellants.

Jaffe & Asher LLP, New York (Marshall T. Potashner of counsel), for appellants. Pillsbury Winthrop Shaw Pittman, LLP, New York (Alexander D. Hardiman of counsel), for respondent.


Jaffe & Asher LLP, New York (Marshall T. Potashner of counsel), for appellants.

Pillsbury Winthrop Shaw Pittman, LLP, New York (Alexander D. Hardiman of counsel), for respondent.

Friedman, J.P., Sweeny, Kahn, Gesmer, Singh, JJ.

Order, Supreme Court, New York County (Kelly O'Neill Levy, J.), entered July 19, 2016, which granted plaintiff's motion for a default judgment and denied defendants' motion to compel acceptance of an answer, unanimously reversed, on the law and the facts, and in the exercise of discretion, without costs, plaintiff's motion denied, and defendants' motion granted.

Plaintiff failed to establish prima facie that it is entitled to a default judgment declaring that defendants are obligated to defend and indemnify it in a personal injury action (see Woodson v. Mendon Leasing Corp., 100 N.Y.2d 62, 71, 760 N.Y.S.2d 727, 790 N.E.2d 1156 [2003] ; AMEC Constr. Mgt., Inc. v. City of New York, 132 A.D.3d 547, 549, 19 N.Y.S.3d 30 [1st Dept. 2015] ), since it has not been sued in that action (see QBE Ins. Corp. v. Adjo Contr. Corp., 121 A.D.3d 1064, 1080, 997 N.Y.S.2d 425 [2d Dept. 2014] ; Sirignano v. Chicago Ins. Co., 192 F.Supp.2d 199, 206 [S.D.N.Y.2002] ).

In view of defendants' excuse for their default in answering the complaint, namely, that a clerical error prevented the matter from reaching the appropriate individuals in the companies, as well as the absence of willfulness, the fact that plaintiff has not claimed prejudice, and counsel's prompt action upon discovering the error, we find that the motion to compel should be granted (see e.g. Interboro Ins. Co. v. Perez, 112 A.D.3d 483, 483, 976 N.Y.S.2d 378 [1st Dept. 2013] ; Gamiel v. Sullivan & Liapakis, 254 A.D.2d 96, 679 N.Y.S.2d 282 [1st Dept. 1998] ; Elkman v. Southgate Owners Corp., 243 A.D.2d 356, 665 N.Y.S.2d 251 [1st Dept. 1997] ).


Summaries of

Tertiary, Inc. v. Liberty Mut. Fire Ins. Co.

Supreme Court, Appellate Division, First Department, New York.
Feb 8, 2018
158 A.D.3d 482 (N.Y. App. Div. 2018)
Case details for

Tertiary, Inc. v. Liberty Mut. Fire Ins. Co.

Case Details

Full title:Tertiary, Inc., Plaintiff-Respondent, v. Liberty Mutual Fire Insurance…

Court:Supreme Court, Appellate Division, First Department, New York.

Date published: Feb 8, 2018

Citations

158 A.D.3d 482 (N.Y. App. Div. 2018)
2018 N.Y. Slip Op. 926
67 N.Y.S.3d 836

Citing Cases

Wesco Ins. Co. v. Travelers Prop. Cas. Co. of Am.

As demonstrated in the underlying action, and absent any further evidence presented in this action, Waldman…