| Schmidt v City of New York |
| 2008 NY Slip Op 02986 [50 AD3d 664] |
| April 1, 2008 |
| Appellate Division, Second Department |
| Moshe Schmidt et al., Appellants, v City of New York etal., Respondent, et al., Defendants. |
—[*1] Wilson, Elser, Moskowitz, Edelman & Dicker LLP, New York, N.Y. (Richard E. Lerner ofcounsel), for respondent.
In an action to recover damages for personal injuries, etc., the plaintiffs appeal from an orderof the Supreme Court, Kings County (Kramer, J.), dated March 16, 2007, which granted themotion of the defendant City of New York pursuant to CPLR 3012 (d) to extend the time toappear and answer, and to compel the plaintiffs to accept its verified answer.
Ordered that the order is affirmed, with costs.
The Supreme Court providently exercised its discretion in granting the motion of thedefendant City of New York pursuant to CPLR 3012 (d) to extend the time to appear and answer,and to compel the plaintiffs to accept its answer, thereby excusing the defendant's delay inserving it (see CPLR 2004, 3012 [d]). Considering the absence of any prejudice to theplaintiffs, the existence of a potentially meritorious defense, and the public policy favoring theresolution of cases on the merits, we agree with the Supreme Court that, as an exercise ofdiscretion, the City's delay in answering was properly excused (see Schonfeld v Blue & White Food Prods.Corp., 29 AD3d 673, 674 [2006]; Yonkers Rib House, Inc. v 1789 Cent. Park Corp., 19 AD3d 687,688 [2005]; Trimble v SAS Taxi Co.Inc., 8 AD3d 557, 558 [2004]). Skelos, J.P., Santucci, Covello, McCarthy andChambers, JJ., concur.