Bong Hag Ma v. Bong Sig Ma
Opinion of the Court
Order, Supreme Court, New
Although the motion court found that defendants offered “no realistic plausible excuse” for their failure to timely answer the amended complaint, it properly gave defendants an opportunity to open the default given a meritorious defense, as indicated by the denial of plaintiffs’ motion for a preliminary injunction, defendants’ vigorous defense of the action, which included a largely successful motion to dismiss the amended complaint and demands for documents during the period of delay, and plaintiffs’ failure to demonstrate any prejudice as a result of the three-month delay (see, Pansey v RKO Gen., 102 AD2d 762; Muney Design v Roscoe Mgt. Co., 97 AD2d 712). Conditioning vacatur of this default upon defendants’ payment of $500 to plaintiffs’ attorney was an appropriate exercise of discretion. Concur — Milonas, J. P., Rosenberger, Ellerin and Andidas, JJ.
Case-law data current through December 31, 2025. Source: CourtListener bulk data.