Summary
affirming denial of default entry and noting that "[p]ublic policy favors the resolution of cases on the merits, and in this case there was a relatively short period of delay, a possible meritorious defense, no claim of prejudice to the plaintiffs, and no willfulness by the defendants
Summary of this case from GUO v. NAYCI CONTR. ASSOC., LLCOpinion
Submitted October 10, 2001.
October 29, 2001.
In an action to recover damages for personal injuries, etc., the plaintiffs appeal from an order of the Supreme Court, Nassau County (Brandveen, J.), dated January 12, 2001, which denied their motion pursuant to CPLR 3215(a) for leave to enter a judgment against the defendants upon their failure to appear or answer, and granted the defendants' cross motion pursuant to CPLR 3012(d) for an extension of time to serve their answer.
Parker Waichman, P.C. (DiJoseph Portegello, P.C., New York, N Y [Arnold E. DiJoseph III] of counsel), for appellants.
Chesney Murphy, LLP, Rockville Centre, N.Y. (Lysaght Russo, P.C. [Michelle S. Russo] of counsel), for respondents.
Before: GABRIEL M. KRAUSMAN, J.P., DANIEL F. LUCIANO, NANCY E. SMITH, THOMAS A. ADAMS, JJ.
ORDERED that the order is affirmed, with costs.
The Supreme Court providently exercised its discretion in denying the plaintiffs' motion pursuant to CPLR 3215(a) for leave to enter a judgment against the defendants upon their failure to appear or answer and granting the defendants' cross motion pursuant to CPLR 3012(d) for an extension of time to answer (see, Dowson v. Forest Park Assn. of Greenwood Lake, N.Y., 228 A.D.2d 471). Public policy favors the resolution of cases on the merits, and in this case there a relatively short period of delay, a possible meritorious defense, no claim of prejudice to the plaintiffs, and no willfulness by the defendants.
KRAUSMAN, J.P., LUCIANO, SMITH and ADAMS, JJ., concur.