From Casetext: Smarter Legal Research

Weinstein v. Schacht

Supreme Court, Appellate Division, Second Department, New York.
Sep 26, 2012
98 A.D.3d 1106 (N.Y. App. Div. 2012)

Opinion

2012-09-26

Stephen A. WEINSTEIN, appellant, v. Robert SCHACHT, respondent.

Stephen A. Weinstein, Bellport, N.Y., appellant pro se. Bernadette Panzella, P.C., New York, N.Y. (Robert A. Mulhall of counsel), for respondent.


Stephen A. Weinstein, Bellport, N.Y., appellant pro se. Bernadette Panzella, P.C., New York, N.Y. (Robert A. Mulhall of counsel), for respondent.

In an action, inter alia, to recover damages for breach of contract, the plaintiff appeals, as limited by his brief, from so *712much of an order of the Supreme Court, Suffolk County (Molia, J.), dated December 13, 2011, as denied that branch of his motion which was, in effect, for leave to enter judgment against the defendant on the issue of liability upon the defendant's failure to serve a timely answer, and granted that branch of the defendant's cross motion which was pursuant to CPLR 3012(d) to compel the plaintiff to accept late service of his answer.

ORDERED that the order is affirmed insofar as appealed from, with costs.

The Supreme Court providently exercised its discretion in denying that branch of the plaintiff's motion which was, in effect, for leave to enter judgment against the defendant on the issue of liability, and in granting the defendant's cross motion pursuant to CPLR 3012(d) to compel the plaintiff to accept late service of his answer. The defendant demonstrated both a reasonable excuse for his default in failing to serve a timely answer and the existence of a potentially meritorious defense to the action ( see Westchester Med. Ctr. v. Allstate Ins. Co., 80 A.D.3d 695, 696, 915 N.Y.S.2d 495;Methal v. City of New York, 50 A.D.3d 654, 655–656, 855 N.Y.S.2d 588;Cooney v. Cambridge Mgt. & Realty Corp., 35 A.D.3d 522, 523, 826 N.Y.S.2d 639;A & C Constr. Inc. of N.Y. v. Flanagan, 34 A.D.3d 510, 823 N.Y.S.2d 682). Moreover, the plaintiff was not prejudiced by the brief 11–day delay involved in this case, and public policy favors the resolution of cases on their merits ( see Vinny Petulla Contr. Corp. v. Ranieri, 94 A.D.3d 751, 752, 941 N.Y.S.2d 659;Zeccola & Selinger, LLC v. Horowitz, 88 A.D.3d 992, 993, 931 N.Y.S.2d 536;Zanelli v. Jmm Raceway, LLC, 83 A.D.3d 697, 919 N.Y.S.2d 878;Westchester Med. Ctr. v. Allstate Ins. Co., 80 A.D.3d at 697, 915 N.Y.S.2d 495;Feder v. Eline Capital Corp., 80 A.D.3d 554, 555, 914 N.Y.S.2d 659).

RIVERA, J.P., ENG, CHAMBERS, SGROI and MILLER, JJ., concur.


Summaries of

Weinstein v. Schacht

Supreme Court, Appellate Division, Second Department, New York.
Sep 26, 2012
98 A.D.3d 1106 (N.Y. App. Div. 2012)
Case details for

Weinstein v. Schacht

Case Details

Full title:Stephen A. WEINSTEIN, appellant, v. Robert SCHACHT, respondent.

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

Date published: Sep 26, 2012

Citations

98 A.D.3d 1106 (N.Y. App. Div. 2012)
2012 N.Y. Slip Op. 6293
950 N.Y.S.2d 711

Citing Cases

U.S. Bank Nat'l Ass'n v. Yarbro

The defendant must demonstrate "both a reasonable excuse for his default in failing to serve a timely answer…

One W. Bank v. Umanzor

Thus, the plaintiff demonstrated its prima facie burden. "[S]uccessful opposition to a CPLR 3215 motion for…