Appellate Division of the Supreme Court of New York, 2011

Feder v. Eline Capital Corp.

Appellate Division of the Supreme Court of New York · Decided January 11, 2011

80 A.D.3d 554; 914 N.Y.S.2d 659

Cases that cite this one

15 later published cases cite this decision.

Ruiz v. Gardere (Appellate Division of the Supreme Court of New York 2015)
Youth v. Grant (Appellate Division of the Supreme Court of New York 2015)
Rozz v. Law Offices of Saul Kobrick, P.C. (Appellate Division of the Supreme Court of New York 2015)
Vellucci v. Home Depot U.S.A., Inc. (Appellate Division of the Supreme Court of New York 2013)
Vellucci v. Home Depot U.S.A., Inc. (Appellate Division of the Supreme Court of New York 2013)
Siwiec v. Rawlins (Appellate Division of the Supreme Court of New York 2013)
Siwiec v. Rawlins (Appellate Division of the Supreme Court of New York 2013)
Grammas v. Lockwood Associates, LLC (Appellate Division of the Supreme Court of New York 2013)
Grammas v. Lockwood Associates, LLC (Appellate Division of the Supreme Court of New York 2013)
Vinny Petulla Contracting Corp. v. Ranieri (Appellate Division of the Supreme Court of New York 2012)
Weinstein v. Schacht (Appellate Division of the Supreme Court of New York 2012)
Weinstein v. Schacht (Appellate Division of the Supreme Court of New York 2012)
PDK Labs, Inc. v. G.M.G. Trans West Corp. (Appellate Division of the Supreme Court of New York 2012)
PDK Labs, Inc. v. G.M.G. Trans West Corp. (Appellate Division of the Supreme Court of New York 2012)
Zeccola & Selinger, LLC v. Harvey Horowitz (Appellate Division of the Supreme Court of New York 2011)

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, Kings County (Spodek, J.), dated December 14, 2009, which denied his motion for leave to enter a default judgment on the issue of liability against the defendant The Avenue Café, Inc., and granted the cross motion of the defendant The Avenue Café, Inc., to compel him to accept late service of its answer.

Ordered that the order is affirmed, with costs.

The Supreme Court providently exercised its discretion in denying the plaintiffs motion for leave to enter a default judg*555ment on the issue of liability against the defendant The Avenue Café, Inc. (hereinafter Avenue Cafe), and in granting Avenue Café’s cross motion to compel the plaintiff to accept late service of its answer. Considering the lack of any prejudice to the plaintiff as a result of Avenue Café’s relatively short delay in serving its answer, the existence of a potentially meritorious defense, and the public policy favoring the resolution of cases on the merits, the Supreme Court properly excused Avenue Café’s delay in answering (see Wiesel v Friends Exhaust Sys., Inc., 71 AD3d 1006 [2010]; Falla v Keel Holdings, LLC, 50 AD3d 844, 845 [2008]; Schmidt v City of New York, 50 AD3d 664 [2008]; Stuart v Kushner, 39 AD3d 535 [2007]; Schonfeld v Blue & White Food Prods. Corp., 29 AD3d 673, 674 [2006]). Covello, J.P., Eng, Chambers and Hall, JJ., concur.

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