DALESSANDRO v. Shinaaz Shawn Husain, Defendant–Appellant. (2026)

Order, Supreme Court, New York County (Jeffrey H. Pearlman, J.), entered on or about January 22, 2026, which, to the extent appealed from as limited by the briefs, denied, as untimely, defendant Shinaaz Shawn Husain's motion for leave to serve a late answer, unanimously reversed, on the law, without costs, Husain's motion to serve a late answer granted, and Husain is directed to serve and file an answer within 20 days of the date of this order.  Appeal from order, same court and Justice, entered on or about April 6, 2026, which denied Husain's motion for clarification and/or reargument and referred plaintiff's cross-motion for a default judgment to the Office of the Special Referee for a hearing, unanimously dismissed, without costs, as academic.

The record is sufficient for this Court to conduct a meaningful review of the January 22, 2026 order denying Husain's motion for leave to file a late answer.  Husain adequately complied with CPLR 5526 by including in the record all documents submitted to Supreme Court in connection with her motion for leave to serve a late answer and her later motion for clarification/reargument of the January order (see J. Carey Smith 2019 Irrevocable Trust v 11 W. Realty LLC, 240 AD3d 432, 433 [1st Dept 2025] ).

Supreme Court improvidently exercised its discretion in denying Husain's motion to serve a late answer (see CPLR 3012[d]; Emigrant Bank v. Rosabianca, 156 AD3d 468, 472–473 [1st Dept 2017] ).  The 18–day delay in answering the complaint was relatively short and plaintiff suffered no prejudice from the delay;  indeed, Husain has already been deposed by the wife's counsel (see e.g. Epstein Becker & Green, P.C. v Samson Mgt. LLC, 188 AD3d 454, 454–455 [1st Dept 2020] ).  In addition, the law office failure that occasioned the delay was reasonable, and there is no evidence that it was due to willfulness.  Husain's counsel explained that he inadvertently missed the deadline for answering the amended complaint because of work obligations related to this action — namely, preparing for and participating in an April 10, 2025 arbitration hearing concerning related claims, as well as preparing for a June 2025 trial in this action — and because of a break for a religious holiday (see Sukhu v R.A.I.N. Home Attendant Servs., Inc., 190 AD3d 468, 468 [1st Dept 2021];  Gordon Law Firm, P.C. v. Premier DNA Corp., 205 AD3d 416, 417 [1st Dept 2022] ).  Given the surrounding circumstances, Supreme Court should have granted the motion, especially in light of the strong public policy in favor of resolving cases on the merits (see Matter of Thomas Anthony Holdings LLC v Goodbody, 210 AD3d 547, 547 [1st Dept 2022] ).

In light of our determination regarding the January 22, 2026 order, Husain's appeal from the April 6, 2026 order is dismissed as academic to the extent the order is appealable (see Intertec Contr.  A/S v. Turner Steiner Intl., 6 AD3d 1, 6 [1st Dept 2004] ).

We have considered the remaining arguments and find them unavailing.

M - 4906 Dalessandro v. Dalessandro

Motion to supplement the record on appeal, denied as academic.