April 4, 2006
New York & Presbyt. Hosp. v Auto One Ins. Co. (2006 NY Slip Op 02509)
https://www.beynensonlaw.com/case-law/new-york-presbyt-hosp-v-auto-one-ins-co-2006-ny-slip-op-02509/
- Decided
- April 4, 2006
- Citation
- 2006 NY Slip Op 02509 · 28 AD3d 441
- 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 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. |
| 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.
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 default judgment and extension of time to answer under CPLR 3012 (d) because the insurer showed a reasonable excuse for its brief delay and potentially meritorious defenses, without willfulness or prejudice.
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 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.
Similar decisions
- New York & Presbyt. Hosp. v Allstate Ins. Co. (2006 NY Slip Op 04260)The insurer obtained default vacatur under CPLR 317 by showing untimely actual notice of the summons and meritorious defenses.
- New York & Presbyt. Hosp. v Travelers Prop. Cas. Ins. Co. (2006 NY Slip Op 02344)The insurer's motion for default vacatur and a late answer was granted based on a reasonable excuse and a meritorious defense.
- 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.
- NYU-Hospital for Joint Diseases v Praetorian Ins. Co. (2012 NY Slip Op 06288)The insurer's default was excused based on minimal delay, lack of prejudice or willfulness, and a potentially meritorious defense.
- 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.