Opinion
2017–06392 Index No. 608026/15
10-17-2018
Salvatore GARGANO, et al., appellants, v. Michael MOREY, et al., defendants, Christopher Baum, et al., respondents.
Luibrand Law Firm, PLLC, Latham, N.Y. (Kevin A. Luibrand of counsel, Albany), for appellants. Kevin M. Baum, Rockville Centre, N.Y. (Michal Gasparski of counsel), for respondents.
Luibrand Law Firm, PLLC, Latham, N.Y. (Kevin A. Luibrand of counsel, Albany), for appellants.
Kevin M. Baum, Rockville Centre, N.Y. (Michal Gasparski of counsel), for respondents.
WILLIAM F. MASTRO, J.P., SANDRA L. SGROI, SYLVIA O. HINDS–RADIX, VALERIE BRATHWAITE NELSON, JJ.
DECISION & ORDER
In an action, inter alia, to recover damages for fraud, the plaintiffs appeal from an order of the Supreme Court, Nassau County (Robert A. Bruno, J.), entered May 9, 2017. The order granted the second renewed motion of the defendants Christopher Baum and Baum & Bailey, P.C., pursuant to CPLR 5015(a)(1) to vacate their default in answering the complaint and to extend their time to answer the complaint.
ORDERED that the order is affirmed, with costs.
The Supreme Court providently exercised its discretion in granting the second renewed motion of the defendants Christopher Baum and Baum & Bailey, P.C. (hereinafter together the Baum defendants), pursuant to CPLR 5015(a)(1) to vacate their default in answering the complaint and to extend their time to answer the complaint. The evidence in the record established that the Baum defendants' failure to serve a timely answer was not willful, the Baum defendants never intended to abandon the action, there were reasonable excuses for the delay (see Young Su Hwangbo v. Nastro, 153 A.D.3d 963, 965, 60 N.Y.S.3d 412 ; Vita v. Alstom Signaling, 308 A.D.2d 582, 764 N.Y.S.2d 864 ), and the Baum defendants had potentially meritorious defenses (see Siemsen v. Mevorach, 160 A.D.3d 1004, 72 N.Y.S.3d 478 ; Lee Dodge, Inc. v. Sovereign Bank, N.A. , 148 A.D.3d 1007, 51 N.Y.S.3d 531 ).
MASTRO, J.P., SGROI, HINDS–RADIX and BRATHWAITE NELSON, JJ., concur.