CPLR § 317

CPLR § 317 Defense by person to whom summons not personally delivered

Girardo v 99-27 Realty, LLC, 2009 NY Slip Op 03693 (App. Div., 2nd, 2009)

The Supreme Court providently exercised its discretion in granting
the respondent leave to reargue and, upon reargument, granting the
respondent's motion, inter alia, pursuant to CPLR 317 to vacate the
judgment entered against it upon its default in appearing and answering
the complaint. CPLR 317 permits a defendant that has been "served with
a summons other than by personal delivery" to defend the action upon a
finding of the court that the defendant "did not personally receive
notice of the summons in time to defend and has a meritorious defense"
(Eugene Di Lorenzo, Inc. v A. C. Dutton Lbr. Co., 67 NY2d 138, 141; see Taieb v Hilton Hotels Corp., 60 NY2d 725, 728; Reyes v DCH Mgt., Inc., 56 AD3d 644; Franklin v 172 Aububon Corp., 32 AD3d 454, 455; Brockington v Brookfield Dev. Corp., 308
AD2d 498). The respondent, which was served through delivery of process
to the Secretary of State, established that it did not personally
receive notice of the summons in time to defend
(see Calderon v 163 Ocean Tenants Corp., 27 AD3d 410, 410-411; [*2]Ford v 536 E. 5th St. Equities, 304
AD2d 615). Furthermore, there is no basis to conclude that the
respondent deliberately attempted to avoid notice of the action
(see Tselikman v Marvin Ct., Inc., 33 AD3d 908, 909; Hon-Kuen Lo v Gong Park Realty Corp., 16 AD3d 553; Grosso v MTO Assocs. Ltd. Partnership, 12 AD3d 402, 403). In addition, the respondent established the existence of a meritorious defense (cf. Yannotti v Four Bros. Homes at Heartland Condominium I, 24 AD3d 659, 660; Zabbia v Westwood, LLC, 18 AD3d 542, 544; Myrow v City of Poughkeepsie, 3 AD3d 480, 481).

The Supreme Court providently exercised its discretion in
extending the time period set forth in CPLR 317 in light of the
respondent's excuse for the short delay in moving to vacate the
judgment and the public policy of determining actions on the merits (cf. CPLR 2004, 2005; F & C Gen. Contrs. Corp. v Atlantic Mut. Mtge. Corp., 202 AD2d 629, 629-630; Allen v Preston, 123 AD2d 303, 303-304; Levine v Berlin, 46 AD2d 902, 903).

The bold is mine.

Leave a Reply

Fill in your details below or click an icon to log in:

WordPress.com Logo

You are commenting using your WordPress.com account. Log Out /  Change )

Google photo

You are commenting using your Google account. Log Out /  Change )

Twitter picture

You are commenting using your Twitter account. Log Out /  Change )

Facebook photo

You are commenting using your Facebook account. Log Out /  Change )

Connecting to %s