| Buchholz v A.L.A.C. Contr. Corp. |
| 2014 NY Slip Op 07612 [122 AD3d 660] |
| November 12, 2014 |
| Appellate Division, Second Department |
[*1]
| Evelyn Buchholz et al., Appellants, v A.L.A.C.Contracting Corporation, Respondent. |
Daniel P. Buttafuoco & Associates, PLLC, Woodbury, N.Y. (Ellen Buchholz ofcounsel), for appellants.
Malapero & Prisco, LLP, New York, N.Y. (Frank Lombardo and Robert L.Emmons of counsel), for respondent.
In an action to recover damages for personal injuries, etc., the plaintiffs appeal froman order of the Supreme Court, Suffolk County (LaSalle, J.), dated October 2, 2013,which denied their motion pursuant to CPLR 3215 for leave to enter a default judgmentagainst the defendant, and granted the defendant's cross motion pursuant to CPLR 3012(d) to extend its time to appear and answer the complaint and to compel the plaintiffs toaccept service of that answer.
Ordered that the order is affirmed, with costs.
In light of the reasonable excuse for the short delay in appearing and answering thecomplaint, the lack of prejudice to the plaintiffs resulting from the defendant's shortdelay in serving an answer, the lack of willfulness on the part of the defendant, and thepublic policy favoring the resolution of cases on the merits, the Supreme Courtprovidently exercised its discretion in denying the plaintiffs' motion pursuant to CPLR3215 for leave to enter a default judgment against the defendant, and in granting thedefendant's cross motion pursuant to CPLR 3012 (d) to extend its time to appear andanswer the complaint and to compel the plaintiffs to accept service of that answer, whichhad been untimely served (see CPLR 2004, 3012 [d]; Gerdes v Canales, 74 AD3d1017, 1018 [2010]; Hostenv Oladapo, 52 AD3d 658 [2008]; Verde Elec. Corp. v Federal Ins. Co., 50 AD3d 672 [2008];Stuart v Kushner, 39 AD3d535 [2007]). Mastro, J.P., Chambers, Cohen and Barros, JJ., concur.