Trimble v. SAS Taxi Co.
Cases that cite this one
17 later published cases cite this decision.
- Harcztark v. Drive Variety, Inc. (Appellate Division of the Supreme Court of New York 2005)
- Federal Natl. v. Williams (Appellate Division of the Supreme Court of New York 2020)
- Fischer v. City of New York (Appellate Division of the Supreme Court of New York 2017)
- Darlind Construction, Inc. v. Prism Solar Technologies, Inc. (Appellate Division of the Supreme Court of New York 2013)
- Darlind Construction, Inc. v. Prism Solar Technologies, Inc. (Appellate Division of the Supreme Court of New York 2013)
- Giha v. Giannos Enterprises, Inc. (Appellate Division of the Supreme Court of New York 2010)
- Dana v. Shopping Time Corp. (Appellate Division of the Supreme Court of New York 2010)
- Klughaupt v. Hi-Tower Contractors, Inc. (Appellate Division of the Supreme Court of New York 2009)
- Methal v. City of New York (Appellate Division of the Supreme Court of New York 2008)
- Schmidt v. City of New York (Appellate Division of the Supreme Court of New York 2008)
- Stuart v. Kushner (Appellate Division of the Supreme Court of New York 2007)
- Gainey v. Anorzej (Appellate Division of the Supreme Court of New York 2006)
- Schonfeld v. Blue & White Food Products Corp. (Appellate Division of the Supreme Court of New York 2006)
- Shaheen v. Webster Realty Associates (Appellate Division of the Supreme Court of New York 2005)
- Yonkers Rib House, Inc. v. 1789 Central Park Corp. (Appellate Division of the Supreme Court of New York 2005)
- Friedman v. Ostreicher (Appellate Division of the Supreme Court of New York 2005)
- Daniels v. Bovis Lend Lease, Inc. (Appellate Division of the Supreme Court of New York 2004)
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 (Galasso, J.), entered November 1, 2002, which denied
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 judgment against the defendants upon their failure to appear or answer, and directing him to accept their answer (see CPLR 2004, 3012 [d]). In view of the absence of any prejudice to the plaintiff, the lack of willfulness on the part of the defendants, and the public policy in favor of resolving cases on the merits, we agree with the Supreme Court that, as a matter of discretion, the defendants’ delay in answering was properly excused (see Goodman v New York City Health & Hosps. Corp., 2 AD3d 581 [2003]; Drake v Drake, 296 AD2d 566 [2002]; Veith Enters. v Electrical Dev. & Constr., 292 AD2d 376 [2002]; Calcagno v Magistrelli, 284 AD2d 289 [2001]). Florio, J.P., Krausman, Townes, Mastro and Fisher, JJ., concur.
Case-law data current through December 31, 2025. Source: CourtListener bulk data.