Learn About the Law
Get help with your legal needs
FindLaw’s Learn About the Law features thousands of informational articles to help you understand your options. And if you’re ready to hire an attorney, find one in your area who can help.
Julian ESTRELLA, Plaintiff, v. Manuel E. HERRERA, Defendant.
Alejandro Castillo, et al., Plaintiffs-Respondents, v. Manuel E. Herrera, Defendant, Julian Estrella, Defendant-Appellant. [And Other Actions].
Order, Supreme Court, Bronx County (Norma Ruiz, J.), entered December 3, 2002, which, in an action for personal injuries, insofar as appealed from, granted plaintiffs' motion for a default judgment as against defendant-appellant, and order, same court and Justice, entered March 25, 2003, which, insofar as appealable, denied defendant-appellant's motion to renew, unanimously affirmed, without costs.
Defendant, who was given notice of plaintiffs' motion for a default judgment (but see CPLR 3215[g][1] ), opposed the motion on the ground that plaintiffs unreasonably refused to accept the answer he served some 14 months after he was served with the summons and complaint. The argument was properly rejected for failure to show a reasonable excuse for the delay (see 114 W. 26th St. Assoc. v. Fortunak, 22 A.D.3d 346, 801 N.Y.S.2d 895 [2005] ). We reject defendant's alternative argument that plaintiffs waived the default by failing to return his answer, which was served after the motion for a default judgment was made. The motion for a default judgment was properly granted on the additional ground that defendant's opposition did not contain an affidavit of merit (see id.). Defendant's attempt to correct this latter defect by moving for renewal could not avail absent a concurrent showing of a reasonable excuse for the delay (see Time Warner City Cable v. Tri State Auto, 5 A.D.3d 153, 772 N.Y.S.2d 512 [2004], appeal dismissed 3 N.Y.3d 656, 782 N.Y.S.2d 696, 816 N.E.2d 569 [2004] ).
Thank you for your feedback!
A free source of state and federal court opinions, state laws, and the United States Code. For more information about the legal concepts addressed by these cases and statutes visit FindLaw's Learn About the Law.
Decided: November 29, 2005
Court: Supreme Court, Appellate Division, First Department, New York.
Search our directory by legal issue
Enter information in one or both fields (Required)
Harness the power of our directory with your own profile. Select the button below to sign up.
Learn more about FindLaw’s newsletters, including our terms of use and privacy policy.
Get help with your legal needs
FindLaw’s Learn About the Law features thousands of informational articles to help you understand your options. And if you’re ready to hire an attorney, find one in your area who can help.
Search our directory by legal issue
Enter information in one or both fields (Required)