September 26, 2012
NYU-Hospital for Joint Diseases v Praetorian Ins. Co. (2012 NY Slip Op 06288)
https://www.beynensonlaw.com/case-law/nyu-hospital-for-joint-diseases-v-praetorian-ins-co-2012-ny-slip-op06288/
- Decided
- September 26, 2012
- Citation
- 2012 NY Slip Op 06288 · 98 AD3d 1101
- Posture
- Default or vacatur
- Outcome
- Insurer prevailed
- Issues
- Defaults and vacatur
- Legal questions
- Vacating a default: excuse and defense (see the maps)
Posture, outcome, issues and treatment by other decisions are Beynenson Law’s classification. Treatment labels are assigned by a language model reading the citing decision; negative and appeal-history labels are checked by a second reader.
Summary
Editorial summary by Beynenson Law, not part of the court’s decision.
Reported in New York Official Reports at NYU-Hospital for Joint Diseases v Praetorian Ins. Co. (2012 NY Slip Op 06288)
| NYU-Hospital for Joint Diseases v Praetorian Ins. Co. |
| 2012 NY Slip Op 06288 [98 AD3d 1101] |
| September 26, 2012 |
| Appellate Division, Second Department |
| Published by New York State Law Reporting Bureau pursuant to Judiciary Law § 431. |
| NYU-Hospital for Joint Diseases, as Assignee of Gladys Feliz,
Appellant, v Praetorian Insurance Company, Respondent. |
—[*1] Joseph Henig, P.C., Bellmore, N.Y., for appellant.
Law Offices of Moira Doherty, P.C., Bethpage, N.Y. (Janice Rosen and Maureen Knodel of counsel), for respondent.
In an action to recover no-fault benefits under a policy of automobile insurance, the plaintiff appeals from an order of the Supreme Court, Nassau County (Galasso, J.), entered March 7, 2012, which granted the defendant’s motion to vacate a clerk’s judgment of the same court entered December 1, 2011, which, upon the defendant’s default in appearing or answering the complaint, was in favor of the plaintiff and against the defendant in the sum of $38,645, and to compel the plaintiff to accept the defendant’s answer.
Ordered that the order is affirmed, with costs.
The Supreme Court providently exercised its discretion in granting the defendant’s motion to vacate the default judgment and to compel the plaintiff to accept its answer (see CPLR 3012 [d]). In light of the lack of any prejudice to the plaintiff resulting from the minimal delay in serving an answer to the complaint, the lack of willfulness on the part of the defendant, the existence of a potentially meritorious defense, and the public policy favoring the resolution of cases on the merits, the defendant’s default in appearing or answering the complaint was properly excused (see CPLR 2004; Central Gen. Hosp. v Chubb Group of Ins. Cos., 90 NY2d 195, 199 [1997]; Vinny Petulla Contr. Corp. v Ranieri, 94 AD3d 751, 752 [2012]; Zeccola & Selinger, LLC v Horowitz, 88 AD3d 992, 993 [2011]; Mount Sinai Hosp. v Triboro Coach, 263 AD2d 11, 18-20 [1999]). Angiolillo, J.P., Balkin, Austin and Miller, JJ., concur.
Legal questions
A question of no-fault law this decision rules on, from our Legal Questions pages. Bars count the decisions on the question by year and court, coloured by category; circles are this decision and the decisions on the question it cites or that cite it. Point at a bar or circle for details. The categories and summaries are Beynenson Law’s classification, made by a language model and checked by a second reading.
Did the defaulting party show a reasonable excuse (or lack of notice) and a potentially meritorious defense or claim?
This decision: Excuse (or lack of actual notice under CPLR 317) and potentially meritorious defense or claim shown; default vacated or late answer allowed
Upheld vacatur of the clerk's default judgment and compelled acceptance of the insurer's answer given the minimal delay, no prejudice or willfulness, a potentially meritorious defense, and the policy favoring resolution on the merits.
Of the 170 decisions on this question in the Second Department courts and the Court of Appeals, 67 (this one included) are in the same category.
Cited by
- New York Hosp. Med. Ctr. of Queens v Nationwide Mut. Ins. Co. (2014 NY Slip Op 06188)The insurer's clerical-oversight affidavit and potentially meritorious defense justified vacating its default judgment.
Similar decisions
- New York & Presbyt. Hosp. v Auto One Ins. Co. (2006 NY Slip Op 02509)The insurer showed a reasonable excuse for its brief answering delay and potentially meritorious defenses, warranting default vacatur.
- New York Hosp. Med. Ctr. of Queens v Insurance Co. of State of Pa. (2005 NY Slip Op 01691)The insurer failed to establish a meritorious defense required to vacate the provider's default judgment.
- New York Univ. Hosp. Rusk Inst. v Illinois Natl. Ins. Co. (2006 NY Slip Op 05601)The insurers established a reasonable excuse for their default and potentially meritorious verification and policy-exhaustion defenses.
- New York & Presbyt. Hosp. v American Home Assur. Co. (2006 NY Slip Op 02510)The insurer established grounds to vacate its default through an excuse tied to a misspelled insured's name and a meritorious coverage defense.
- Westchester Med. Ctr. v Hartford Cas. Ins. Co. (2009 NY Slip Op 00528)The insurers showed an excusable default and a potentially meritorious defense based on partial exhaustion of policy limits.