From Casetext: Smarter Legal Research

State Farm Mut. Auto. Ins. Co. v. Rodriguez

Appellate Division of the Supreme Court of New York, Second Department
Nov 29, 2004
12 A.D.3d 662 (N.Y. App. Div. 2004)

Opinion

November 29, 2004.

O'Connor, O'Connor, Hintz Deveney, LLP, Melville, N.Y. (Michael T. Reagan of counsel), for appellant.

Martin, Fallon Mulle, Huntington, N.Y. (Richard C. Mulle of counsel), for respondent.


In a subrogation action to recover insurance benefits paid to the plaintiff's insured, the defendant appeals, as limited by his brief, from so much of an order of the Supreme Court, Nassau County (Palmieri, J.), dated April 12, 2004, as denied his cross motion to dismiss the complaint pursuant to CPLR 3215(c).

ORDERED that the order is affirmed insofar as appealed from, with costs.

"Where a defendant defaults in appearing or answering and a plaintiff fails to enter a judgment upon the default within one year thereof, the action is deemed abandoned ( see CPLR 3215[c])" ( Turnbull v. Summit Entertainment Corp., 300 A.D.2d 392, 750 N.Y.S.2d 784). Under such circumstances, to avoid dismissal of the complaint, the plaintiff must offer a reasonable excuse for its delay and demonstrate the merits of the complaint ( see CPLR 3215[c]).

The plaintiff's delay in entering a default judgment was reasonable under the circumstances. The plaintiff's counsel notified the defendant's insurance carrier of the action within the one-year period specified in CPLR 3215(c) and the carrier indicated that it was attempting to confirm coverage ( see Rivera v. Shlagbaum, 204 A.D.2d 524, 612 N.Y.S.2d 68; Ingenito v. Grumman Corp., 192 A.D.2d 509, 510-511, 596 N.Y.S.2d 83; Hinds v. 2461 Realty Corp., 169 A.D.2d 629, 564 N.Y.S.2d 763). Furthermore, the complaint verified by the plaintiff's attorney was sufficient to constitute a sufficient affidavit of merits where, as here, the plaintiff's attorney had personal knowledge of the facts constituting the action ( see CPLR 105[u]; Martin v. Zangrillo, 186 A.D.2d 724, 589 N.Y.S.2d 180).

FLORIO, J.P., GOLDSTEIN, ADAMS, RIVERA and SPOLZINO, JJ., concur.


Summaries of

State Farm Mut. Auto. Ins. Co. v. Rodriguez

Appellate Division of the Supreme Court of New York, Second Department
Nov 29, 2004
12 A.D.3d 662 (N.Y. App. Div. 2004)
Case details for

State Farm Mut. Auto. Ins. Co. v. Rodriguez

Case Details

Full title:STATE FARM MUTUAL AUTOMOBILE INSURANCE COMPANY, respondent, v. Julio…

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

Date published: Nov 29, 2004

Citations

12 A.D.3d 662 (N.Y. App. Div. 2004)
784 N.Y.S.2d 875

Citing Cases

Wilens v. Unique Opportunity U.S.

Additionally, plaintiff can also use deposition testimony (Empire Chevrolet Sales Corporation v Spallone, 304…

Vaiselberg v. Duarte

As a result, the burden shifts to the plaintiffs to show sufficient cause for the delay and demonstrate the…