Opinion
2017–08181 Index 512133/16
02-13-2019
Victor VEGA, Respondent, v. WEST NOSTRAND REALTY, LLC, Appellant.
Gold Benes, LLP, Bellmore, N.Y. (Jeffrey B. Gold and Karen C. Higgins of counsel), for appellant. Herschel Kulefsky (Ephrem J. Wertenteil, New York, NY, of counsel), for respondent.
Gold Benes, LLP, Bellmore, N.Y. (Jeffrey B. Gold and Karen C. Higgins of counsel), for appellant.
Herschel Kulefsky (Ephrem J. Wertenteil, New York, NY, of counsel), for respondent.
REINALDO E. RIVERA, J.P., SHERI S. ROMAN, JEFFREY A. COHEN, SYLVIA O. HINDS–RADIX, JJ.
DECISION & ORDERORDERED that the order is affirmed, with costs.
The plaintiff allegedly was injured when he slipped and fell on a sidewalk abutting premises owned by the defendant, a limited liability company. The plaintiff subsequently commenced this action, and served the defendant via the New York Secretary of State pursuant to Limited Liability Company Law § 303. The defendant failed to answer, and the plaintiff moved for leave to enter a default judgment against the defendant on the issue of liability. The defendant cross-moved to compel the plaintiff to accept its late answer. The Supreme Court granted the motion and denied the cross motion, and the defendant appeals.
"To extend the time to answer the complaint and to compel the plaintiff to accept an untimely answer as timely, a defendant must provide a reasonable excuse for the delay and demonstrate a potentially meritorious defense to the action" ( Mannino Dev., Inc. v. Linares, 117 A.D.3d 995, 995, 986 N.Y.S.2d 578 ).
Here, the defendant failed to demonstrate a reasonable excuse for its delay in answering the complaint (see Ultimate One Distrib. Corp. v. 2900 Stillwell Ave., LLC, 140 A.D.3d 1054, 36 N.Y.S.3d 142 ). Therefore, it is unnecessary to determine whether the defendant demonstrated the existence of a potentially meritorious defense (see Bank of N.Y. Mellon v. Adago, 155 A.D.3d 594, 63 N.Y.S.3d 495 ; Deutsche Bank Natl. Trust Co. v. Kuldip, 136 A.D.3d 969, 25 N.Y.S.3d 653 ).
The defendant's remaining contentions are without merit.
Accordingly, we agree with the Supreme Court's determination granting the plaintiff's motion for leave to enter a default judgment against the defendant on the issue of liability and denying the defendant's cross motion to compel the plaintiff to accept its late answer.
RIVERA, J.P., ROMAN, COHEN and HINDS–RADIX, JJ., concur.