Opinion
CA 01-01585
February 1, 2002.
Appeal from that part of an order of Supreme Court, Oswego County (Nicholson, J.), entered November 20, 2000, that extended the time for plaintiff to serve a reply to the counterclaim.
BERT F. HALDERMAN, BALDWINSVILLE, FOR DEFENDANT-APPELLANT.
PRESENT: PINE, J.P., WISNER, SCUDDER, KEHOE, AND GORSKI, JJ.
It is hereby ORDERED that the order so appealed from be and the same hereby is unanimously affirmed without costs.
Memorandum:
Supreme Court did not abuse its discretion in extending the time for plaintiff to serve a reply to the counterclaim.
Plaintiff established a reasonable excuse for the delay and a meritorious defense to the counterclaim, there is no indication that its failure to serve a timely reply was willful, the delay did not result in any prejudice to defendant, and public policy favors resolving cases on their merits rather than based legal technicalities ( see, CPLR 3012 [d]; Sippin v. Gallardo, 287 A.D.2d 703; Theis v. Langworthy, 270 A.D.2d 954; Kondolf v. National Grange Mut. Ins. Co., 259 A.D.2d 1021; Cleary v. East Syracuse-Minoa Cent. School Dist., 248 A.D.2d 1005).