| Jeffers v Stein |
| 2012 NY Slip Op 07089 [99 AD3d 970] |
| October 24, 2012 |
| Appellate Division, Second Department |
| Oswald Jeffers, Appellant, v Bruce L. Stein et al.,Respondents, et al., Defendant. |
—[*1]
In an action, inter alia, for a judgment declaring that the plaintiff is the owner of certain realproperty, the plaintiff appeals, as limited by his brief, from so much of an order of the SupremeCourt, Kings County (Lewis, J.), dated October 14, 2011, as denied that branch of his motionwhich was for leave to enter a default judgment against the defendants Bruce L. Stein, astemporary administrator of the estate of Alice Parker Gordon, also known as Ales Parker Gordon,and Cecil D. Worrell, as administrator of the estate of James Gordon, and granted that branch ofthe cross motion of the defendants Bruce L. Stein, as temporary administrator of the estate ofAlice Parker Gordon, also known as Ales Parker Gordon, and Cecil D. Worrell, as administratorof the estate of James Gordon, which was for leave to serve and file a late answer.
Ordered that the order is affirmed insofar as appealed from, without costs or disbursements.
The Supreme Court properly denied that branch of the plaintiff's motion which was for leaveto enter a default judgment against the defendants Bruce L. Stein, as temporary administrator ofthe estate of Alice Parker Gordon, also known as Ales Parker Gordon, and Cecil D. Worrell, asadministrator of the estate of James Gordon (hereinafter together the Gordon defendants), andproperly granted that branch of the Gordon defendants' cross motion which was for leave to servea late answer, since the Gordon defendants did not default in appearing in this action. On the daythis action was commenced, the plaintiff brought an order to show cause in the Supreme Courtseeking a preliminary injunction. The Gordon defendants' attorney appeared in the SupremeCourt that day to oppose the plaintiff's order to show cause, and thereafter requested anadjournment of the motion, filed papers in opposition to the motion, and appeared for oralargument on the motion. By these acts, the Gordon defendants made an informal appearance inthis action, and are therefore not in default (see City of Newburgh v 96 Broadway LLC, 72 AD3d 632, 633[2010]; Carlin v Carlin, 52 AD3d559, 561 [2008]; Parrotta v Wolgin, 245 AD2d 872, 873 [1997]; Taylor vTaylor, 64 AD2d 592 [1978]; Cohen v Ryan, 34 AD2d 789, 790 [1970]).
The plaintiff's remaining contentions have been rendered academic in light of ourdetermination. Eng, P.J., Skelos, Chambers and Sgroi, JJ., concur.