From Casetext: Smarter Legal Research

Peg Bandwidth, LLC v. Optical Commc'ns

Supreme Court, Appellate Division, First Department, New York.
May 30, 2017
150 A.D.3d 625 (N.Y. App. Div. 2017)

Opinion

05-30-2017

PEG BANDWIDTH, LLC, Plaintiff–Appellant, v. OPTICAL COMMUNICATIONS, Defendant–Respondent.

Eckert Seamans Cherin & Mellott, LLC, White Plains (Thomas M. Smith of counsel), for appellant. Law Offices of Victor A. Worms, New York (Victor A. Worms of counsel), for respondent.


Eckert Seamans Cherin & Mellott, LLC, White Plains (Thomas M. Smith of counsel), for appellant.

Law Offices of Victor A. Worms, New York (Victor A. Worms of counsel), for respondent.

ACOSTA, P.J., FRIEDMAN, ANDRIAS, WEBBER, GESMER, JJ.

Order, Supreme Court, New York County (Saliann Scarpulla, J.), entered November 4, 2015, which denied plaintiff's motion for summary judgment or a default judgment, and granted defendant's motion for an extension of time to answer, unanimously affirmed, without costs.

While plaintiff satisfied the requirements of CPLR 3215(f) for a default judgment, we decline to disturb the motion court's exercise of its broad discretion in finding that defendant's excuse for its delay in answering the complaint, i.e., law office failure, was reasonable (see e.g. Metropolitan Prop. & Cas. Ins. Co. v. Braun, 120 A.D.3d 1128, 992 N.Y.S.2d 420 [1st Dept.2014] ). In addition, the delay was relatively short, plaintiff failed to demonstrate prejudice, and there is a strong preference that matters be decided on the merits (see Gantt v. North Shore–LIJ Health Sys., 140 A.D.3d 418, 31 N.Y.S.3d 864 [1st Dept.2016] ).

On its motion for summary judgment, plaintiff failed to tender sufficient evidence to eliminate material issues of fact (see Winegrad v. New York Univ. Med. Ctr., 64 N.Y.2d 851, 853, 487 N.Y.S.2d 316, 476 N.E.2d 642 [1985] ). Issues of fact as to whether plaintiff properly terminated the agreement pursuant to its terms arise from the face of the agreement and the affidavit by plaintiff's vice chairman. Moreover, there are issues of fact as to which party breached the agreement, and there has been no discovery yet (see CPLR 3212[f] ).

We have considered plaintiff's remaining contentions and find them unavailing.


Summaries of

Peg Bandwidth, LLC v. Optical Commc'ns

Supreme Court, Appellate Division, First Department, New York.
May 30, 2017
150 A.D.3d 625 (N.Y. App. Div. 2017)
Case details for

Peg Bandwidth, LLC v. Optical Commc'ns

Case Details

Full title:PEG BANDWIDTH, LLC, Plaintiff–Appellant, v. OPTICAL COMMUNICATIONS…

Court:Supreme Court, Appellate Division, First Department, New York.

Date published: May 30, 2017

Citations

150 A.D.3d 625 (N.Y. App. Div. 2017)
150 A.D.3d 625
2017 N.Y. Slip Op. 4233

Citing Cases

Reeves v. Found. for Child Victims of Family Courts

Although the affidavits of service filed by plaintiff establish that service was presumptively valid (see…

Sanchez v. Frederic Fekkai (Mark NY) LLC

Here, defendant fails to address how it processed mail received at its corporate address or at the salon on…