April 4, 2006

New York & Presbyt. Hosp. v Auto One Ins. Co. (2006 NY Slip Op 02509)

Headnote

The Supreme Court in this case granted the defendant's motion to vacate its default in answering and for an extension of time to answer pursuant to CPLR 3012 (d). The defendant demonstrated a reasonable excuse for its brief delay in serving an answer and potentially meritorious defenses. The default was not willful, nor was there a showing of prejudice to the plaintiffs. Therefore, the Court held that the default was properly vacated. Furthermore, the Court also granted the defendant's separate motion to quash an information subpoena, finding that this was also properly granted. As a result, the order of the Supreme Court was affirmed with costs.

Reported in New York Official Reports at New York & Presbyt. Hosp. v Auto One Ins. Co. (2006 NY Slip Op 02509)

New York & Presbyt. Hosp. v Auto One Ins. Co.

2006 NY Slip Op 02509 [28 AD3d 441]

April 4, 2006

Appellate Division, Second Department

Published by New York State Law Reporting Bureau pursuant to Judiciary Law § 431.

As corrected through Wednesday, June 21, 2006

New York and Presbyterian Hospital et al., Appellants,
v
Auto One Insurance Company, Respondent.

—[*1]

In an action to recover no-fault insurance benefits under certain insurance contracts, the plaintiffs appeal from an order of the Supreme Court, Nassau County (Dunne, J.), dated August 18, 2005, which granted the defendant’s motion to vacate a judgment entered April 1, 2005, upon its failure to appear or answer, awarding the plaintiffs the principal sum of $28,060.13, and for an extension of time to answer pursuant to CPLR 3012 (d), and granted the defendant’s separate motion to quash an information subpoena.

Ordered that the order is affirmed, with costs.

The Supreme Court providently exercised its discretion in granting the defendant’s motion to vacate its default in answering and for an extension of time to answer pursuant to CPLR 3012 (d). The defendant demonstrated both a reasonable excuse for its brief delay in serving an answer, and potentially meritorious defenses. Furthermore, there is a strong public policy in favor of resolving cases on the merits, and the default was not willful, nor was there a showing of prejudice to the plaintiffs (see Harcztark v Drive Variety, Inc., 21 AD3d 876 [2005]; Bunch v Dollar Budget, Inc., 12 AD3d 391 [2004]; Orwell Bldg. Corp. v Bessaha, 5 AD3d 573 [2004]; Sippin v Gallardo, 287 AD2d 703 [2001]).

The defendant’s motion to quash the information subpoena was properly granted (see CPLR 2304). Florio, J.P., Santucci, Mastro and Rivera, JJ., concur.