| Alonso v Lorimik Realty Corp. |
| 2015 NY Slip Op 06486 [131 AD3d 496] |
| August 12, 2015 |
| Appellate Division, Second Department |
[*1]
| Edgar Alonso, Appellant, v Lorimik RealtyCorporation et al., Respondents. |
Michael H. Joseph, White Plains, N.Y., for appellant.
Michael E. Pressman, New York, N.Y. (Stuart Cholewa of counsel), for respondentLorimik Realty Corporation.
Weiner, Millo, Morgan & Bonanno, LLC, New York, N.Y. (Anne Armstrongand David J. Skochil of counsel), for respondent J&D Hudson Associates, Inc.
In an action to recover damages for personal injuries, the plaintiff appeals, as limitedby his brief, from so much of an order of the Supreme Court, Westchester County(Smith, J.), dated March 6, 2014, as denied his motion for leave to enter a defaultjudgment against the defendants and granted those branches of the separate crossmotions of the defendants which were to compel him to accept their answers.
Ordered that the order is affirmed insofar as appealed from, with one bill ofcosts.
In light of the public policy favoring the resolution of cases on their merits, theSupreme Court may compel a plaintiff to accept an untimely answer (see CPLR2004, 3012 [d]) where the record demonstrates that there was only a short delay inappearing or answering the complaint, that there was no willfulness on the part of thedefendant, that there would be no prejudice to the plaintiff, and that a potentiallymeritorious defense exists (seeGonzalez v Seejattan, 123 AD3d 762, 763 [2014]; Evans v Sandoval, 121 AD3d1037 [2014]; Arteaga vAdom Rental Transp., Inc., 121 AD3d 931 [2014]; EHS Quickstops Corp. v GRJH,Inc., 112 AD3d 577 [2013]; Vellucci v Home Depot U.S.A., Inc., 102 AD3d 767[2013]). Here, the record demonstrates that the defendants met these criteria.
Accordingly, the Supreme Court providently exercised its discretion in denying theplaintiff's motion for leave to enter a default judgment and in granting those branches ofthe defendants' separate cross motions which were to compel the plaintiff to accept theiranswers (see Buchholz vA.L.A.C. Contr. Corp., 122 AD3d 660, 661 [2014]; Klein v Yeshiva M'kor Chaim,116 AD3d 672 [2014]). Given this conclusion, the defendants' remaining contentionhas been rendered academic and need not be addressed. Mastro, J.P., Austin, Roman andSgroi, JJ., concur.