AMICUS AI
Citation Codes
Equivalent Citations
citation codes
Docket Number
Attorney(S)
Judges
Are you a practicing lawyer?
Enhance your digital presence and reach by creating a Casemine profile.
Upload pleading to use the new AI search
Cites
Cited by
Citation Codes
Equivalent Citations
citation codes
Docket Number
Attorney(S)
Judges

NAOMI JOLKOVSKY, Respondent, v. JOHNE. LEGEMAN et al., Defendants, and CHASE MANHATTAN AUTOMOTIVE FINANCE CORPORATION, Appellant.

Ordered that the order is reversed, on the law and as a matter of discretion, with costs, the motion is denied, the cross motion is granted, and the "amended answer with cross claim to supplemental complaint" annexed to the cross motion papers is deemed served upon the plaintiff.

Under the circumstances of this case, the Supreme Court improvidently exercised its discretion in granting the plaintiffs motion for leave to enter judgment against the defendant Chase Manhattan Automotive Finance Corporation (hereinafter Chase) upon Chase's default in appearing and answering the complaint, and in denying Chase's cross motion pursuant to CPLR 3012 (d) to extend the time to serve and file an answer and to compel the plaintiff to accept its late answer. Chase'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; see Friedman v Ostreicher, 22 AD3d 798, 799). Moreover, public policy favors the resolution of cases on the merits ( see Bunch v Dollar Budget, Inc., supra).

Use AI to get other relevant cases.

Comments

JOLKOVSKY v. LEGMAN
(Aug 8, 2006)