From Casetext: Smarter Legal Research

William v. Four

Appellate Division of the Supreme Court of New York, First Department
Apr 1, 2008
50 A.D.3d 265 (N.Y. App. Div. 2008)

Opinion

April 1, 2008.

Order, Supreme Court, New York County (Emily Jane Goodman, J.), entered March 21, 2007, which, to the extent appealed from as limited by the briefs, denied plaintiffs' motion for a default judgment, unanimously affirmed, without costs.

Before: Lippman, P.J., Tom, Williams and Acosta, JJ.


In this action alleging discrimination in housing, retaliatory eviction and personal injury, defendants demonstrated a reasonable excuse for their delay in answering the complaint ( see Castillo v Garzon-Ruiz, 290 AD2d 288, 290; Parker v I.E.S.I. N.Y. Corp., 279 AD2d 395, lv dismissed 96 NY2d 927; Barajas v Toll Bros., 247 AD2d 242; Ganvey Merchandising Corp. v Knudsen El. Corp., 169 AD2d 518). We note that they established prima facie meritorious defenses to plaintiffs' claims. Plaintiffs have not demonstrated that they suffered any prejudice as a result of the delay ( see Castillo, 290 AD2d at 290; Shure v Village of Westhampton Beach, 121 AD2d 887). This State's public policy favors determinations on the merits ( see Guzetti v City of New York, 32 AD3d 234).


Summaries of

William v. Four

Appellate Division of the Supreme Court of New York, First Department
Apr 1, 2008
50 A.D.3d 265 (N.Y. App. Div. 2008)
Case details for

William v. Four

Case Details

Full title:WILLIAM PAGAN et al., Appellants, v. FOUR THIRTY REALTY LLC, Also Known as…

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

Date published: Apr 1, 2008

Citations

50 A.D.3d 265 (N.Y. App. Div. 2008)
855 N.Y.S.2d 63

Citing Cases

Wolf v. Imus

This Court finds that the Cumulus defendants exhibited an intent to defend this litigation and Wolf has not…

Weisenthal v. Gotham Realty Holdings

Moreover, the mis-communication between Mr. Ishay and Mr. Azeroual as to retaining defense counsel which…