Puchner v. Nastke
Appellate Division of the Supreme Court of the State of New York
1Opinion of the Court
Peters, J.P
We affirm. Supreme Court possesses the discretion to permit late service of an answer upon a showing of a reasonable excuse *1262for the delay and a meritorious defense to the complaint (see CPLR 3012 [d]; Williams v Charlew Constr. Co., Inc., 82 AD3d 1491, 1492 [2011]; Kostun v Gower, 61 AD3d 1307, 1308 [2009]; Huckle v CDH Corp., 30 AD3d 878, 879 [2006]). “[W]hether there is a reasonable excuse for a default is a discretionary, sui generis determination to be made by the court based on all relevant factors, including the extent of the delay, whether there has been prejudice to the…
2Cases cited12 opinions
- Sanders v. SandersAppellate Division of the Supreme Court of the State of New York · 1988
- Toyota Motor Credit Corp. v. Impressive Auto Center, Inc.Appellate Division of the Supreme Court of the State of New York · 2011
- Dinstber v. Allstate InsuranceAppellate Division of the Supreme Court of the State of New York · 2010
- Chase Manhattan Automotive Finance Corp. v. Allstate InsuranceAppellate Division of the Supreme Court of the State of New York · 2000
- Kostun v. GowerAppellate Division of the Supreme Court of the State of New York · 2009
7 more not listed; retrieve them via the Exa API.
3Cited by29 opinions
- Calaci v. Allied Interstate, Inc.Appellate Division of the Supreme Court of the State of New York · 2013
- Luderowski v. SextonAppellate Division of the Supreme Court of the State of New York · 2017
- Anthony DeMarco & Sons Nursery, LLC v. Maxim Construction Service CorporationAppellate Division of the Supreme Court of the State of New York · 2015
- Walker v. GlaxoSmithKline, LLCAppellate Division of the Supreme Court of the State of New York · 2022
- Inwald Enterprises, LLC v. Aloha EnergyAppellate Division of the Supreme Court of the State of New York · 2017
24 more not listed; retrieve them via the Exa API.