| Moriano v Provident N.Y. Bancorp |
| 2010 NY Slip Op 01939 [71 AD3d 747] |
| March 9, 2010 |
| Appellate Division, Second Department |
| Patricia Moriano, Respondent, v Provident New YorkBancorp, Appellant. |
—[*1] Jacobowitz & Gubits, LLP, Walden, N.Y. (David Gandin of counsel), forrespondent.
In an action to recover damages for breach of a lease, the defendant appeals from an order ofthe Supreme Court, Orange County (Slobod, J.), dated September 8, 2009, which, in effect,denied its motion, inter alia, to compel the plaintiff to accept its late answer.
Ordered that the order is affirmed, with costs.
"A defendant who has failed to timely appear or answer the complaint must provide areasonable excuse for the default and demonstrate a meritorious defense to the action, whenopposing a motion for leave to enter judgment upon its failure to appear or answer and moving toextend the time to answer or to compel the acceptance of an untimely answer" (Lipp v Port Auth. of N.Y. & N.J., 34AD3d 649, 649 [2006]; seeJuseinoski v Board of Educ. of City of N.Y., 15 AD3d 353, 356 [2005]). Here, theSupreme Court providently exercised its discretion in denying the defendant's motion, inter alia,to compel the plaintiff to accept its late answer, since it failed to demonstrate the existence of ameritorious defense to the action (seeBaldwin v Mateogarcia, 57 AD3d 594, 595 [2008]; Cortlandt Healthcare, LLC v Gantt, 54 AD3d 799, 800 [2008];Lipp v Port Auth. of N.Y. & N.J., 34 AD3d at 649-650; Juseinoski v Board of Educ.of City of N.Y., 15 AD3d at 357-358). Rivera, J.P., Florio, Dickerson, Belen and Roman,JJ., concur.