December 15, 2017

Hu-Nam-Nam v Auto One Ins. Co. (2017 NY Slip Op 51781(U))

Headnote

The main issues in this case were whether the defendant had a reasonable excuse for its delay in serving an answer and whether the defendant had a meritorious defense to the action. The court found that the defendant had established a reasonable excuse for its failure to serve an answer and had made a prima facie showing of a viable defense based on a lack of medical necessity. As a result, the court reversed the order, denying the plaintiff's motion to enter a default judgment and granting the defendant's cross motion to open its default in answering and to compel the plaintiff to accept a late answer. Therefore, the holding of the case was in favor of the defendant, and the plaintiff's motion was denied while the defendant's cross motion was granted.

Reported in New York Official Reports at Hu-Nam-Nam v Auto One Ins. Co. (2017 NY Slip Op 51781(U))

Hu-Nam-Nam v Auto One Ins. Co. (2017 NY Slip Op 51781(U)) [*1]
Hu-Nam-Nam v Auto One Ins. Co.
2017 NY Slip Op 51781(U) [58 Misc 3d 133(A)]
Decided on December 15, 2017
Appellate Term, Second Department
Published by New York State Law Reporting Bureau pursuant to Judiciary Law § 431.
This opinion is uncorrected and will not be published in the printed Official Reports.

Decided on December 15, 2017
SUPREME COURT, APPELLATE TERM, SECOND DEPARTMENT, 2d, 11th and 13th JUDICIAL DISTRICTS
PRESENT: : MICHAEL L. PESCE, P.J., THOMAS P. ALIOTTA, MARTIN M. SOLOMON, JJ
2015-231 K C

Hu-Nam-Nam, M.D., as Assignee of Mercado Jose, Respondent,

against

Auto One Insurance Company, Appellant.

Law Office of Jason Tenenbaum, P.C. (Jason Tenenbaum, Esq.), for appellant. Law Offices of Melissa Betancourt, P.C. (Melissa Betancourt, Esq.), for respondent.

Appeal from an order of the Civil Court of the City of New York, Kings County (Robin Kelly Sheares, J.), entered October 2, 2014. The order granted plaintiff’s motion to enter a default judgment and denied defendant’s cross motion to open its default in answering and to compel plaintiff to accept a late answer.

ORDERED that the order is reversed, with $30 costs, plaintiff’s motion to enter a default judgment is denied, and defendant’s cross motion to open its default in answering and to compel plaintiff to accept a late answer is granted.

In this action by a provider to recover assigned first-party no-fault benefits, defendant appeals from an order which granted plaintiff’s motion to enter a default judgment and denied defendant’s cross motion to open its default and to compel plaintiff to accept a late answer.

It is well settled that in order to open a default in answering, the defendant must demonstrate both a reasonable excuse for its delay in appearing and answering the complaint as well as a meritorious defense to the action (see CPLR 5015 [a] [1]; Eugene Di Lorenzo, Inc. v A.C. Dutton Lbr. Co., 67 NY2d 138, 141 [1986]; Sound Shore Med. Ctr. v Lumbermens Mut. Cas. Co., 31 AD3d 743 [2006]). Here, defendant established a reasonable excuse for its failure to serve an answer (see Vardaros v Zapas, 105 AD3d 1037 [2013]) and made a prima facie showing of a viable defense based on a lack of medical necessity.

Accordingly, the order is reversed, plaintiff’s motion to enter a default judgment is denied, and defendant’s cross motion to open its default in answering and to compel plaintiff to accept a late answer is granted.

PESCE, P.J., ALIOTTA and SOLOMON, JJ., concur.


ENTER:
Paul Kenny
Chief Clerk
Decision Date: December 15, 2017