From Casetext: Smarter Legal Research

Trimble v. SAS Taxi Co.

Appellate Division of the Supreme Court of New York, Second Department
Jun 21, 2004
8 A.D.3d 557 (N.Y. App. Div. 2004)

Opinion

2003-06485.

Decided June 21, 2004.

In an action to recover damages for personal injuries, the plaintiff appeals from an order of the Supreme Court, Nassau County (Galasso, J.), entered November 1, 2002, which denied his motion for leave to enter judgment against the defendants upon their failure to appear or answer, and directed him to accept their answer.

Henry Stanziale, Mineola, N.Y. (Nancy Pavlovic of counsel), for appellant.

Norman Volk Associates, P.C., New York, N.Y. (Holly E. Peck of counsel), for respondents.

Before: ANITA R. FLORIO, J.P., GABRIEL M. KRAUSMAN, SANDRA L. TOWNES, WILLIAM F. MASTRO, STEVEN W. FISHER, JJ.


DECISION ORDER

ORDERED that the order is affirmed, with costs.

The Supreme Court providently exercised its discretion in denying the plaintiff's motion for leave to enter judgment against the defendants upon their failure to appear or answer, and directing him to accept their answer ( see CPLR 2004, 3012[d]). In view of the absence of any prejudice to the plaintiff, the lack of willfulness on the part of the defendants, and the public policy in favor of resolving cases on the merits, we agree with the Supreme Court that, as a matter of discretion, the defendants' delay in answering was properly excused ( see Goodman v. New York City Health Hosps. Corp., 2 A.D.3d 581; Drake v. Drake, 296 A.D.2d 566; Veith Enters. v. Electrical Dev. Constr., 292 A.D.2d 376; Calcagno v. Magistrelli, 284 A.D.2d 289).

FLORIO, J.P., KRAUSMAN, TOWNES, MASTRO and FISHER, JJ., concur.


Summaries of

Trimble v. SAS Taxi Co.

Appellate Division of the Supreme Court of New York, Second Department
Jun 21, 2004
8 A.D.3d 557 (N.Y. App. Div. 2004)
Case details for

Trimble v. SAS Taxi Co.

Case Details

Full title:TIMOTHY V. TRIMBLE, appellant, v. SAS TAXI CO. INC., ET AL., respondents

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

Date published: Jun 21, 2004

Citations

8 A.D.3d 557 (N.Y. App. Div. 2004)
778 N.Y.S.2d 707

Citing Cases

Harcztark v. Drive Variety, Inc.

Ordered that the order is affirmed, with costs. Contrary to the plaintiff's contention, the Supreme Court…

Yonkers Rib House, Inc. v. 1789 Central Park Corp.

The Supreme Court providently exercised its discretion in denying that branch of the plaintiffs' cross motion…