Appellate Division of the Supreme Court of New York, 2000

Stone v. County of Nassau

Appellate Division of the Supreme Court of New York · Decided May 8, 2000

272 A.D.2d 392; 707 N.Y.S.2d 370; 2000 N.Y. App. Div. LEXIS 5114

Cases that cite this one

8 later published cases cite this decision.

Kelly v. National Wholesale Liquidators, Inc. (Appellate Division of the Supreme Court of New York 2002)
Jones v. Chuang (Appellate Division of the Supreme Court of New York 2001)
Trent v. Bedford Stuyvesant Restoration Center (Appellate Division of the Supreme Court of New York 2000)
Russo v. U-Store Self Storage, LLC (Appellate Division of the Supreme Court of New York 2004)
Khanna v. Premium Food & Sports Enterprise, Inc. (Appellate Division of the Supreme Court of New York 2001)
Daniel Shakespeare Co. v. Incorporated Village of Hempstead (Appellate Division of the Supreme Court of New York 2000)
Roche Management Inc. v. Burns (Appellate Division of the Supreme Court of New York 2000)
Freel v. Ferraro (Appellate Division of the Supreme Court of New York 2000)

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

—In an action to recover damages for personal injuries, the plaintiff appeals from an order of the Supreme Court, Nassau County (Lockman, J.), dated August 24, 1999, which denied her motion for leave to enter a judgment against the defendant upon its failure to timely answer the complaint and deemed the defendant’s answer timely served nunc pro tunc.

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 a judgment against the defendant upon its failure to timely answer the complaint. While the defendant’s delay in serving its answer was due to law office failure, the record indicates that the delay *393was short and not willful, and that the plaintiff was not prejudiced thereby (see, A & J Concrete Corp. v Arker, 54 NY2d 870; Matter of Long Is. Light. Co. v Assessor of Town of Brook-haven, 251 AD2d 332; Bungay v Joy Power Prods., 243 AD2d 527). Furthermore, the defendant set forth facts sufficiently establishing a meritorious defense (see, Concepcion v Talon Realty Corp., 258 AD2d 494; Anamdi v Anugo, 229 AD2d 408). Ritter, J. P., Sullivan, S. Miller, Luciano and H. Miller, JJ., concur.

Case-law data current through December 31, 2025. Source: CourtListener bulk data.