Appellate Division of the Supreme Court of New York, 1998

Cleary v. East Syracuse-Minoa Central School District

Appellate Division of the Supreme Court of New York · Decided March 13, 1998 · Boehm, Callahan, Fallon, Pine, Wisner

248 A.D.2d 1005; 670 N.Y.S.2d 145; 1998 N.Y. App. Div. LEXIS 3089

Cases that cite this one

8 later published cases cite this decision.

Humphrey v. WIXT News Ch. 9 (Appellate Division of the Supreme Court of New York 2004)
Case v. Cayuga County (Appellate Division of the Supreme Court of New York 2009)
Niagara Mohawk Power Corp. v. Freed (Appellate Division of the Supreme Court of New York 2000)
Harris v. City of New York (Appellate Division of the Supreme Court of New York 2006)
Village of Parish v. Weichert (Appellate Division of the Supreme Court of New York 2002)
Goldman v. City of New York (Appellate Division of the Supreme Court of New York 2001)
Theis v. Langworthy (Appellate Division of the Supreme Court of New York 2000)
Capone v. Board of Education of Lafayette Central School District (Appellate Division of the Supreme Court of New York 1999)

This list shows which later cases cite this one. It does not say how they treated it, and no review of that has been done. Not a substitute for Shepard’s or KeyCite — verify before relying.

Opinion of the Court

—Order unanimously affirmed without costs. Memorandum: Supreme Court did not abuse its discretion in denying the motion of plaintiff for a default judgment and granting the cross motion of defendant Jefferson-Lewis-Herkimer-HamiltonOneida BOCES (BOCES) to compel plaintiff to accept its late answer (see, CPLR 3012 [d]; Goracy v Burns, Brooks & McNeil, 155 AD2d 256; see also, Better v Town of Schodack, 169 AD2d 965). Public policy favors the resolution of a case on the merits, and a court has broad discretion to grant relief from a pleading default if there is a showing of merit to the defense, a reasonable excuse for the delay and it appears that the delay did not prejudice the other party (see, Lichtman v Sears, Roebuck & Co., 236 AD2d 373; Davies v Contel of N. Y., 155 AD2d 809, 810). The affidavit submitted by BOCES establishes a meritorious defense and that the default was caused by a “bureaucratic error [that] was not willful” (Curtis v Town of Clinton, 138 AD2d 445). Further, plaintiff has suffered no demonstrable prejudice from the four-month delay.

Finally, the contention of BOCES that it was not properly served is without merit (see, Best v City of New York, 101 AD2d 847; Mariano v Steinberg, 87 AD2d 606). (Appeal from Order of Supreme Court, Onondaga County, Mordue, J. — Default Judgment.)

Present — Pine, J. P., Wisner, Callahan, Boehm and Fallon, JJ.

Case-law data current through September 30, 2026. Source: CourtListener bulk data.