| Paramount Transp. Sys., Inc. v Lasertone Corp. |
| 2009 NY Slip Op 01204 [59 AD3d 603] |
| February 17, 2009 |
| Appellate Division, Second Department |
| Paramount Transportation Systems, Inc., Doing Business as R & LCarriers, Respondent, v Lasertone Corporation, Appellant. |
—[*1] Thompson Hine, LLP, New York, N.Y. (Joseph Koczko of counsel), forrespondent.
In an action to recover damages for breach of contract, the defendant appeals from an orderof the Supreme Court, Queens County (Taylor, J.), dated December 20, 2007, which granted theplaintiff's motion pursuant to CPLR 3215 for leave to enter judgment on the issue of liabilityupon the defendant's failure to answer and denied its application for leave to serve and file ananswer.
Ordered that the order is reversed, on the law, with costs, the plaintiff's motion is denied, andthe defendant's application for leave to serve and file an answer is granted; and it is further,
Ordered that the defendant's time to serve and file an answer is extended until 20 days afterservice upon it of a copy of this decision and order.
In opposition to the plaintiff's motion pursuant to CPLR 3215 for leave to enter a defaultjudgment upon the defendant's failure to answer, the defendant's president submitted an affidavitwhich set forth a reasonable excuse for the defendant's short delay and made a sufficientshowing of the existence of a meritorious defense (see Nasca v Town of Brookhaven, 4 AD3d 462 [2004]; cf. Juseinoski v Board of Educ. of City ofN.Y., 15 AD3d 353, 355 [2005]). Under these circumstances, the plaintiff's motionshould have been denied and the defendant's application for leave to serve and file [*2]a late answer should have been granted (see CPLR 3012[d]). Skelos, J.P., Dillon, Ritter, Carni and Leventhal, JJ., concur.