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
HERE PLAINTIFF CORPORATION, RC, DID NOT EXIST WHEN THE REAL ESTATE CONTRACT WAS ENTERED AND WAS NOT FORMED FOR SEVERAL YEARS UNTIL JUST BEFORE THE INSTANT LITIGATION; BECAUSE DEFENDANT DEALT WITH RC AS A CORPORATION FOR YEARS AND RECEIVED SOME BENEFIT FROM THE CONTRACT, THE DOCTRINE OF “CORPORATION BY ESTOPPEL” PROHIBITED DEFENDANT FROM AVOIDING ITS OBLIGATIONS UNDER THE CONTRACT BY ARGUING A NONEXISTENT CORPORATION CANNOT ENTER A CONTRACT (SECOND DEPT).
PLAINTIFF FELL THROUGH PLANKING WHICH DID NOT ADEQUATELY PROTECT A SHAFT OPENING; THE FACT THAT PLAINTIFF’S FOREMAN INSTRUCTED PLAINTIFF NOT TO ENTER THE SHAFT SPEAKS TO COMPARATIVE NEGLIGENCE WHICH IS NOT A BAR TO SUMMARY JUDGMENT ON A LABOR LAW 240(1) CAUSE OF ACTION (SECOND DEPT).
Defendant Did Not Demonstrate the Absence of Constructive Notice of the Condition Alleged to Have Caused Plaintiff to Fall–Defendant Therefore Not Entitled to Summary Judgment
Unduly Suggestive Line-Up Required a New Trial
THE CITY DID NOT HAVE WRITTEN NOTICE OF THE SIDEWALK/CURB DEFECT IN THIS SLIP AND FALL CASE BECAUSE THE DEFECT DID NOT APPEAR ON THE BIG APPLE MAP WHICH HAD BEEN SERVED ON THE CITY, DESPITE THE APPARENT EXISTENCE OF ANOTHER BIG APPLE MAP WHICH SHOWED THE DEFECT BUT WAS NOT SHOWN TO HAVE BEEN SERVED ON THE CITY (SECOND DEPT).
Case Brought by UK Citizen Re: Death in Dubai Dismissed on Forum Non Conveniens Grounds
COMPLAINT STATED A CAUSE OF ACTION AGAINST BROKER INDIVIDUALLY FOR NEGLIGENT MISREPRESENTATION AND FOR BREACH OF A FIDUCIARY DUTY AGAINST THE BROKER’S CORPORATION.
DNA EVIDENCE RECOVERED AFTER THE DEFENDANT WAS CONVICTED OF MURDER POINTED TO THE VICTIM’S BOYFRIEND AS THE PERPETRATOR; BECAUSE THE EVIDENCE AGAINST THE DEFENDANT WAS A SINGLE IDENTIFICATION WITNESS WHO WAS 88 YEARS OLD AND HAD POOR VISION, THE DNA EVIDENCE MAY HAVE LED TO A MORE FAVORABLE VERDICT; NEW TRIAL ORDERED (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 © 2026 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...