| Westchester Med. Ctr. v Hartford Cas. Ins. Co. |
| 2009 NY Slip Op 00528 [58 AD3d 832] |
| January 27, 2009 |
| Appellate Division, Second Department |
| Westchester Medical Center, as Assignee of Diedre Walsh,Appellant, v Hartford Casualty Insurance Company et al.,Respondents. |
—[*1] Stewart H. Friedman (John T. Ryan and Robert F. Horvat of counsel), forrespondents.
In an action to recover no-fault insurance benefits, the plaintiff appeals from an order of theSupreme Court, Nassau County (Martin, J.), dated August 5, 2008, which granted the defendants'motion, inter alia, to vacate a judgment of the same court entered April 10, 2008, upon thedefendants' default in appearing and answering the complaint, in favor of the plaintiff andagainst the defendants in the principal sum of $16,571.91.
Ordered that the order is affirmed, with costs.
A defendant seeking to vacate a judgment entered upon its default in appearing andanswering the complaint must demonstrate a reasonable excuse for its delay in appearing andanswering, as well as a meritorious defense to the action (see CPLR 5015 [a] [1]; Verde Elec. Corp. v Federal Ins. Co.,50 AD3d 672, 672-673 [2008]). Here, the defendants established that their employeereasonably believed that the action had been discontinued after she advised the plaintiff'scounsel's office that no-fault benefits had been exhausted, thereby demonstrating a reasonableexcuse for the short period of time in which they failed either to appear or to answer thecomplaint (see New York Univ. Hosp.Tisch Inst. v Merchants Mut. Ins. Co., 15 AD3d 554, 554-555 [2005]). In addition, thedefendants established that the policy limits had been partially exhausted through the payment ofclaims for prior services (see 11 NYCRR 65-3.15; Nyack [*2]Hosp. v General MotorsAcceptance Corp., 8 NY3d 294, 301 [2007]; Montefiore Med. Ctr. v Government Empls. Ins. Co., 34 AD3d771, 772 [2006]; New York &Presbyt. Hosp. v Allstate Ins. Co., 28 AD3d 528, 528-529 [2006]), therebydemonstrating the existence of a potentially meritorious defense to the action. Finally, theplaintiff did not demonstrate prejudice from the defendants' relatively short delay in appearingand answering, and public policy favors the resolution of cases on the merits (see Verde Elec.Corp. v Federal Ins. Co., 50 AD3d at 673). Under these circumstances, the Supreme Courtprovidently exercised its discretion in granting that branch of the defendants' motion which wasto vacate the judgment (see St.Vincent's Hosp. & Med. Ctr. v Allstate Ins. Co., 42 AD3d 525 [2007]; New York & Presbyt. Hosp. v AmericanHome Assur. Co., 28 AD3d 442, 443 [2006]; New York Univ. Hosp. Tisch Inst. vMerchants Mut. Ins. Co., 15 AD3d at 555; cf. New York Univ. Hosp. Rusk Inst. v Illinois Natl. Ins. Co., 31 AD3d511 [2006]).
The plaintiff's remaining contentions are without merit. Spolzino, J.P., Covello, McCarthyand Belen, JJ., concur.