You are here: / / MOTION TO COMPEL ACCEPTANCE OF A LATE ANSWER SHOULD HAVE BEEN GRANTED (SECOND...

MOTION TO COMPEL ACCEPTANCE OF A LATE ANSWER SHOULD HAVE BEEN GRANTED (SECOND DEPT).

The Second Department, reversing Supreme Court, determined defendant’s motion to compel plaintiff to accept an answer which was two days late should have been granted pursuant to CPLR 2004:

CPLR 2004 provides that, “[e]xcept where otherwise expressly prescribed by law, the court may extend the time fixed by any statute, rule or order for doing any act, upon such terms as may be just and upon good cause shown, whether the application for extension is made before or after the expiration of the time fixed.” Given the strong public policy favoring the resolution of cases on the merits, “the Supreme Court may compel a plaintiff to accept an untimely answer (see CPLR 2004, 3012[d]) where the record demonstrates that there was only a short delay in appearing or answering the complaint, that there was no willfulness on the part of the defendant, that there would be no prejudice to the plaintiff, and that a potentially meritorious defense exists”… . Here, in light of the defendant’s brief and unintentional delay in serving its answer, the lack of prejudice to the plaintiff, and the existence of a potentially meritorious defense, the Supreme Court improvidently exercised its discretion in denying the defendant’s motion pursuant to CPLR 2004 to compel the plaintiff to accept its late answer … . Baldwin Rte. 6, LLC v Bernad Creations, Ltd., 2018 NY Slip Op 01039, Second Dept 2-14-18

CIVIL PROCEDURE (MOTION TO COMPEL ACCEPTANCE OF A LATE ANSWER SHOULD HAVE BEEN GRANTED (SECOND DEPT))/ANSWER (CIVIL PROCEDURE, MOTION TO COMPEL ACCEPTANCE OF A LATE ANSWER SHOULD HAVE BEEN GRANTED (SECOND DEPT))/CPLR 2004 (MOTION TO COMPEL ACCEPTANCE OF A LATE ANSWER SHOULD HAVE BEEN GRANTED (SECOND DEPT))

You might also like
PLAINTIFF WAS NOT WEARING A HARD HAT AND WAS STRUCK IN THE HEAD BY DEBRIS DURING DEMOLITION WORK; PLAINTIFF ALLEGED THE FAILURE TO PROVIDE HEAD PROTECTION VIOLATED THE INDUSTRIAL CODE GIVING RISE TO A LABOR LAW 241(6) CAUSE OF ACTION; DEFENDANTS DID NOT DEMONSTRATE THE JOB WAS NOT A HARD HAT JOB; THEREFORE DEFENDANTS’ MOTION FOR SUMMARY JUDGMENT SHOULD NOT HAVE BEEN GRANTED (SECOND DEPT).
Pre-Deposition Motion to Dismiss in Rear-End Collision Case Not Premature
Income of Mother’s Cohabiting Fiance Should Not Have Been Considered in Determining Mother’s Entitlement to Assigned Counsel
PROSECUTOR’S UNTRUE CLAIM, MADE IN SUMMATION, THAT DEFENDANT’S DNA WAS FOUND ON THE WEAPON USED IN THE SHOOTING REQUIRED REVERSAL (SECOND DEPT).
ALTHOUGH DEFENDANTS, RESIDENTS OF ISRAEL, HAD TIMELY NOTICE OF A NEW YORK LAWSUIT, THE PROCESS SERVER’S AFFIDAVIT INDICATES DUE DILIGENCE IN A FAILED ATTEMPT TO SERVE DEFENDANTS AT A NEW YORK ADDRESS, BECAUSE DEFENDANTS WERE NEVER SERVED, THE DEFAULT JUDGMENT IS A NULLITY (SECOND DEPT). ​
EVEN THOUGH FATHER PAID WHAT HE OWED WHEN MOTHER FILED A PETITION FOR UNPAID CHILD SUPPORT, MOTHER WAS ENTITLED TO ATTORNEY’S FEES (SECOND DEPT).
PLAINTIFF RETAILER ATTEMPTED TO RECOVER PAYMENTS MADE TO A BANK STEMMING FROM THE HACKING OF MASTERCARD CREDIT CARD INFORMATION FROM THE RETAILER’S ACCOUNTS UNDER EQUITABLE SUBROGATION, MONEY HAD AND RECEIVED AND UNJUST ENRICHMENT THEORIES, COMPLAINT PROPERLY DISMISSED (SECOND DEPT). ​
PROPERTY OWNER’S LIABILITY UNDER LABOR LAW 240 (1) FOR PLAINTIFF’S FALL FROM A SCAFFOLD THAT DID NOT HAVE SAFETY RAILINGS IS BASED UPON ITS STATUS AS AN OWNER, NOT NEGLIGENCE, THEREFORE PROPERTY OWNER ENTITLED TO INDEMNIFICATION FROM GENERAL CONTRACTOR (SECOND DEPT).

Categories

Sign Up for the Mailing List to Be Notified When the Site Is Updated.

  • This field is for validation purposes and should be left unchanged.

Copyright © 2025 New York Appellate Digest, Inc.
Site by CurlyHost | Privacy Policy

tenant’s failure to report income from a new job to the new york city... MATTER ERRONEOUSLY TRANSFERRED TO A COURT WITHOUT SUBJECT MATTER JURISDICTION...