From Casetext: Smarter Legal Research

Kremer v. Kremer

Appellate Division of the Supreme Court of New York, Second Department
May 30, 1989
150 A.D.2d 759 (N.Y. App. Div. 1989)

Opinion

May 30, 1989

Appeal from the Supreme Court, Nassau County (Yachnin, J.).


Ordered that the order is reversed, in the exercise of discretion, without costs or disbursements, the defendant's renewed motion is granted, and her proposed answer is deemed served, on the condition that the defendant's attorney personally pays $1,500 to the plaintiff within 20 days after service upon him of a copy of this decision and order, with notice of entry; in the event that the condition is not complied with, the order is affirmed, without costs or disbursements.

The Supreme Court erred in denying the defendant's motion for relief under CPLR 3012 (d) based solely on her failure to submit an adequate affidavit of merit (see, Trapani v Imlug Seven Corp., 140 A.D.2d 690; Jones v TSS Seedman's, 131 A.D.2d 728; Mufalli v Ford Motor Co., 105 A.D.2d 642). Given this State's liberal policy toward preventing default judgments in matrimonial actions (see, D'Alleva v D'Alleva, 127 A.D.2d 732; Lucas v Lucas, 109 A.D.2d 781; Rutledge v Rutledge, 60 A.D.2d 646), the reasonable excuse proffered for the defendant's delay in answering, and the lack of prejudice to the plaintiff, the defendant should have been granted an extension of time within which to answer and to assert her counterclaim. Under the circumstances, however, we condition our reversal upon the payment by the defendant's attorney personally of $1,500 to the plaintiff to compensate him for the inconvenience and additional legal work emanating from the delay. Brown, J.P., Lawrence, Kunzeman and Kooper, JJ., concur.


Summaries of

Kremer v. Kremer

Appellate Division of the Supreme Court of New York, Second Department
May 30, 1989
150 A.D.2d 759 (N.Y. App. Div. 1989)
Case details for

Kremer v. Kremer

Case Details

Full title:GEORGE KREMER, Respondent, v. JEAN KREMER, Appellant

Court:Appellate Division of the Supreme Court of New York, Second Department

Date published: May 30, 1989

Citations

150 A.D.2d 759 (N.Y. App. Div. 1989)
542 N.Y.S.2d 24

Citing Cases

Rosen v. Rosen

Here, the defendant's failure to answer the complaint was willful ( see McGusty v. McGusty, 268 A.D.2d 508).…

Paz v. Long Island Railroad

We find, however, that the defendant's delay in serving its answer, even after the plaintiff's attorney…