Bunch v. Dollar Budget, Inc., 12 A.D.3d 391 (N.Y. App. Div. 2004). · Go Syfert
Search
Bunch v. Dollar Budget, Inc., 12 A.D.3d 391 (N.Y. App. Div. 2004). Cases Citing This Book View Copy Cite
G Cite
cited 2× by 2 distinct cases, last quoted 2008 · …delay in appearing and answering was brief, the default was not willful, and there was no evidence that the plaintiff was prejudiced at p. 391 ✓
32 citation events (32 in the last 25 years) across 4 distinct courts.
Strongest positive: Bank of New York v. Willis (nyappdiv, 2017-05-03)
Treatment trajectory · 2005 → 2026 · click a year to view as-of
2005 2015 2026
Top citers, strongest first. 4 distinct citers. How cited ↗
discussed Cited as authority (rule) Bank of New York v. Willis
N.Y. App. Div. · 2017 · confidence medium
Here, the plaintiff’s process server’s affidavit of service indicated that the additional mailing pursuant to CPLR 3215 (g) (4) (i) was made to the wrong address, and, therefore, was not sufficient to show compliance with CPLR 3215 (g) (4) (i) (see Bunch v Dollar Budget, Inc., 12 AD3d 391, 391-392 [2004]; Schilling v Maren Enters., 302 AD2d 375, 376 [2003]; Ocuto Blacktop & Paving Co. v Trataros Constr, 277 AD2d 919, 920 [2000]; Rafa Enters. v Pigand Mgt.
discussed Cited as authority (rule) Lucas v. Stam
N.Y. App. Div. · 2017 · confidence medium
Considering the minimal delay, the absence of prejudice to the plaintiff, and the lack of willfulness on the part of COC, the delay in serving its answer was properly excused (see Darlind Constr., Inc. v Prism Solar Tech., Inc., 109 AD3d 783 , 783-784 [2013]; Jolkovsky v Legeman, 32 AD3d 418, 419 [2006]; Bunch v Dollar Budget, Inc., 12 AD3d 391, 391 [2004]).
discussed Cited as authority (rule) Hosten v. Oladapo
N.Y. App. Div. · 2008 · confidence medium
The defendant’s “delay in appearing and answering was brief, the default was not willful, and there was no evidence that the plaintiff was prejudiced” (Bunch v Dollar Budget, Inc., 12 AD3d 391, 391 [2004]; see Jolkovsky v Legeman, 32 AD3d 418 [2006]; Friedman v Ostreicher, 22 AD3d 798, 799 [2005]).
discussed Cited "see, e.g." Confidential Lending, LLC v. Nurse
N.Y. App. Div. · 2014 · signal: see also · confidence low
Rests. v Slevin, 93 AD2d 767, 768 [1983]), the Supreme Court properly determined that the plaintiff failed to comply with the additional notice requirement of CPLR 3215 (g) (3) (i) (see Tsiporin v Ziegel, 203 AD2d 451 [1994]; see also Bunch v Dollar Budget, Inc., 12 AD3d 391 [2004]; Schilling v Maren Enters., 302 AD2d 375, 376 [2003]; Rafa Enters. v Pigand Mgt.
Retrieving the full opinion text from the archive…
Mattie Bunch
v.
Dollar Budget, Inc.
Appellate Division of the Supreme Court of the State of New York.
Nov 8, 2004.
12 A.D.3d 391
2004 N.Y. App. Div. LEXIS 13340
Cited by 29 opinions  |  Published

In an action to recover damages for personal injuries, the plaintiff appeals from an order of the Supreme Court, Queens County (Kelly, J.), dated December 5, 2003, which granted the defendant’s motion to extend the time to serve an answer and to compel him to accept it, and denied his cross motion, in effect, for leave to enter judgment against the defendant upon the default in appearing and answering and to set the matter down for an inquest on the issue of damages.

Ordered that the order is affirmed, with costs.

The Supreme Court providently exercised its discretion in granting the defendant’s motion and denying the plaintiff’s cross motion. The defendant’s delay in appearing and answering was brief, the default was not willful, and there was no evidence that the plaintiff was prejudiced (see Sippin v Gallardo, 287 AD2d 703, 703-704 [2001]; Khanna v Premium Food & Sports Enter., 279 AD2d 508, 509 [2001]; Lichtman v Sears, Roebuck & Co., 236 AD2d 373 [1997]). Moreover, public policy favors the resolution of cases on the merits (see Sippin v Gallardo, supra).

The plaintiffs cross motion was properly denied for the ad[*392] ditional reason that it was defective, since the plaintiff failed to submit proof of compliance with CPLR 3215 (g) (4) (i) (see Schilling v Maren Enters., 302 AD2d 375, 376 [2003]). Krausman, J.p., Luciano, Mastro and Lifson, JJ., concur.