At page 416 Defendants' failure to answer or appear in litigation9 citing cases
- State Farm Fire & Cas. Co. v. 123 Med. Grp., P.C., 2025 NY Slip Op 32297(U) (N.Y. Sup. Ct., New York Cty. 2025).unpublishedDISCUSSION In order to establish its entitlement to a default judgment pursuant to CPLR 3215, plaintiff must submit proof of: (1) service of the summons and complaint; (2) the facts constituting the claim; and (3) defendants’ default in an…
- Infinity Auto Ins. Co. v. Marquez, 2025 NY Slip Op 32301(U) (N.Y. Sup. Ct., New York Cty. 2025).unpublishedDISCUSSION In order to establish its entitlement to a default judgment pursuant to CPLR 3215, plaintiff must submit proof of: (1) service of the summons and complaint; (2) the facts constituting the claim; and (3) defendants’ default in an…
- Gov't Empls. Ins. Co. v. Am. Med. Initiatives, P.C., 2025 NY Slip Op 32307(U) (N.Y. Sup. Ct., New York Cty. 2025).unpublishedDISCUSSION In order to establish its entitlement to a default judgment pursuant to CPLR 3215, plaintiff must submit proof of: (1) service of the summons and complaint; (2) the facts constituting the claim; and (3) defendants’ default in an…
- Unitrin Safeguard Ins. Co. v. Clemente, 2025 NY Slip Op 32304(U) (N.Y. Sup. Ct., New York Cty. 2025).unpublishedIn order to establish its entitlement to a default judgment pursuant to CPLR 3215, plaintiff must submit proof of: (1) service of the summons and complaint; (2) the facts constituting the claim; and (3) defendants’ default in answering or…
- Hereford Ins. Co. v. A to Z Supply Servs., Inc., 2024 NY Slip Op 33545(U) (N.Y. Sup. Ct., New York Cty. 2024).unpublishedDISCUSSION In order to establish a default judgment pursuant to CPLR 3215, plaintiff must submit proof of: (1) service of the summons and complaint; (2) the facts constituting the claim; and (3) defendants' default in answering or appearin…
- Guaman v. USM Asset Trust-Series 7, 2024 NY Slip Op 32248(U) (N.Y. Sup. Ct., New York Cty. 2024).unpublishedNO. 71 RECEIVED NYSCEF: 07/02/2024 DISCUSSION In order to establish their entitlement to a default judgment pursuant to CPLR 3215, movants must submit proof of: (1) service of the summons and complaint; (2) the facts constituting the claim…
- Carpio v. 700 Third Ave. Assoc., LLC, 2024 NY Slip Op 31971(U) (N.Y. Sup. Ct., New York Cty. 2024).unpublishedDISCUSSION In order to establish his entitlement to a default judgment pursuant to CPLR §3215, plaintiff must submit proof of: (1) service of the summons and complaint; (2) the facts constituting the claim; and (3) defendants' default in a…
- Eighteen Harrison Mgt. LLC v. Gruppo 5 Subpartners Inc., 2024 NY Slip Op 31869(U) (N.Y. Sup. Ct., New York Cty. 2024).unpublishedANALYSIS A proponent for a default judgment must provide proof of service of the summons and complaint, proof of the facts con~tituting th~ claim, and proof of the default (CPLR 3215 [f]; see also Gordon Law Firm, P.C. v Premier DNA Corp.,…
- 20 W. 47 St. Assoc., LLC v. Rafaello & Co., 2024 NY Slip Op 31555(U) (N.Y. Sup. Ct., New York Cty. 2024).unpublishedANALYSIS A proponent for a default judgment must provide proof of service of the summons and complaint, proof of the facts constituting the claim, and proof of the default (CPLR 3215 [f]; see also Gordon Law Firm, P.C. v Premier DNA Corp.,…
At page 417 Evaluating excusable delay in answering motions4 citing cases“questionable . . . , other factors militate in favor of granting his motion to compel late acceptance of an answer”
- S.G. v. New York City Health & Hosps. Corp., 2026 NY Slip Op 00068 (N.Y. App. Div. 1st Dep't 2026).published Even if Shanock's excuse for his delay in answering can be characterized as "questionable . . . , other factors militate in favor of granting his motion to compel late acceptance of an answer" ( Gordon Law Firm, P.C. v Premier DNA Corp. ,…
- Oquendo v. Approved Oil Co. of Brooklyn, Inc., 2025 NY Slip Op 32100(U) (N.Y. Sup. Ct., New York Cty. 2025).unpublishedOn a motion for leave to enter a default judgment pursuant to CPLR 3215, the movant is required to submit proof of service of the summons and complaint, proof of the facts constituting the claim, and proof of the defaulting party's default…
- Hereford Ins. Co. v. Physio Care Physical Therapy, PC, 2024 NY Slip Op 24083 (N.Y. Sup. Ct., New York Cty. 2024).published DISCUSSION CPLR 3215(a) provides, in pertinent part, that "[w]hen a defendant has failed to appear, plead or proceed to trial . . . the plaintiff may seek a default judgment against them." On a motion pursuant to CPLR 3215, a plaintiff dem…
q2 “there has been no showing of prejudice to plaintiff arising from the delay”1 citing case
- S.G. v. New York City Health & Hosps. Corp., 2026 NY Slip Op 00068 (N.Y. App. Div. 1st Dep't 2026).published Even if Shanock's excuse for his delay in answering can be characterized as "questionable . . . , other factors militate in favor of granting his motion to compel late acceptance of an answer" ( Gordon Law Firm, P.C. v Premier DNA Corp. ,…
Other citing cases
- Nationwide Com. & Indus. Surfaces v. Tectonic Bldrs. Inc., 2025 NY Slip Op 31982(U) (N.Y. Sup. Ct., New York Cty. 2025).unpublished
v.
Premier DNA Corp.
| Gordon Law Firm, P.C. v Premier DNA Corp. |
| 2022 NY Slip Op 02948 |
| Decided on May 03, 2022 |
| Appellate Division, First Department |
| Published by New York State Law Reporting Bureau pursuant to Judiciary Law § 431. |
| This opinion is uncorrected and subject to revision before publication in the Official Reports. |
Decided and Entered: May 03, 2022
Before: Renwick, J.P., Kapnick, Friedman, Rodriguez, Pitt, JJ.
Index No. 650867/19 Appeal No. 15858 Case No. 2020-03802
v
Premier DNA Corp., et al., Defendants, Jon Steinberg, Defendant-Appellant.
Siegel & Reiner, LLP, New York (Richard H. Del Valle of counsel), for appellant.
[*~416–417]
Order, Supreme Court, New York County (Gerald Lebovits, J.), entered December 20, 2019, which granted plaintiff's motion for a default judgment and denied defendant Jon Steinberg's motion to compel plaintiff to accept a late answer, unanimously reversed, on the facts and in the exercise of discretion, without costs, the motion denied, and the cross motion granted.
Plaintiff satisfied the requirements of CPLR 3215(f) by submitting proof of the service of the summons and complaint and an affidavit setting forth the facts that constitute the causes of action asserted, defendant's default and the amounts due (see e.g. Gantt v North Shore-LIJ Health Sys., 140 AD3d 418 [1st Dept 2016]).
Nevertheless, we find that, while defendant offered a questionable excuse for his delay in answering, other factors militate in favor of granting his motion to compel late acceptance of an answer (see 3012[d]; Cantave v 170 W. 85 St. Hous. Dev. Fund Corp., 164 AD3d 1157 [1st Dept 2018]). It does not appear from the record that defendant's delay was willful, there has been no showing of prejudice to plaintiff arising from the delay, and, under the circumstances, i.e., that the parties' rights and liabilities under the agreement at issue are contested and there exist credibility issues, defendant has raised a potentially meritorious defense (see id. at 1157; Emigrant Bank v Rosabianca, 156 AD3d 468, 472 [1st Dept 2017]). THIS CONSTITUTES THE DECISION AND ORDER
OF THE SUPREME COURT, APPELLATE DIVISION, FIRST DEPARTMENT.
ENTERED: May 3, 2022