| Ryan v Breezy Point Coop., Inc. |
| 2010 NY Slip Op 06304 [76 AD3d 523] |
| August 3, 2010 |
| Appellate Division, Second Department |
| Richard Ryan, Appellant, v Breezy Point Cooperative,Inc., Respondent, et al., Defendant. |
—[*1] White, Quinlan & Staley, LLP, Garden City, N.Y. (Terence Quinlan of counsel), forrespondent.
In an action to recover damages for personal injuries, the plaintiff appeals from an order ofthe Supreme Court, Queens County (Rosengarten, J.), dated September 16, 2009, which grantedthe motion of the defendant Breezy Point Cooperative, Inc., pursuant to CPLR 3012 (d) tocompel the plaintiff to accept its answer as timely.
Ordered that the order is reversed, on the law, with costs, and the motion of the defendantBreezy Point Cooperative, Inc., pursuant to CPLR 3012 (d) to compel the plaintiff to accept itsanswer as timely is denied.
To compel the plaintiff to accept an untimely answer as timely, a defendant must provide areasonable excuse for the delay and demonstrate a potentially meritorious defense to the action(see Juseinoski v Board of Educ. of Cityof N.Y., 15 AD3d 353 [2005]; Ennis v Lema, 305 AD2d 632 [2003]).
In this case, Breezy Point Cooperative, Inc. (hereinafter Breezy Point), failed to demonstratethat it had a potentially meritorious defense to the action. Breezy Point submitted a proposedanswer which was verified only by its attorney and an affirmation from an attorney who did nothave personal knowledge of the facts (see Salch v Paratore, 60 NY2d 851 [1983]; Juseinoski v Board of Educ. of City ofN.Y., 15 AD3d 353 [2005]; Bekker v Fleischman, 35 AD3d 334 [2006]). Accordingly, theSupreme Court improperly granted Breezy Point's motion. Mastro, J.P., Covello, Belen and Hall,JJ., concur.