Case Name: Inta-Boro Acres, Inc., Respondent, v. Mattoo & Bhat Medical Associates, P.C., Doing Business as AV Care, Appellant, et al., Defendants
Court: New York Supreme Court, Appellate Division
Jurisdiction: New York
Decision Date: 2014-08-06
Citations: 120 A.D.3d 475
Docket Number: 
Parties: Inta-Boro Acres, Inc., Respondent, v Mattoo & Bhat Medical Associates, P.C., Doing Business as AV Care, Appellant, et al., Defendants.
Judges: Skelos, J.E, Dickerson, Cohen and Duffy, JJ., concur.
Reporter: Appellate Division Reports
Volume: 120
Pages: 475–475

Head Matter:
Inta-Boro Acres, Inc., Respondent, v Mattoo & Bhat Medical Associates, P.C., Doing Business as AV Care, Appellant, et al., Defendants.
[989 NYS2d 905]

Opinion:
In an action to recover damages for breach of contract, the defendant Mattoo & Bhat Medical Associates, EC., doing business as AV Care, appeals from so much of an order of the Supreme Court, Queens County (Gavrin, J.), dated July 24, 2013, as denied that branch of its motion which was to vacate so much of a judgment of the same court entered April 11, 2012, as was entered against it upon its failure to appear or answer the complaint and for leave to serve a late answer.
Ordered that the order is reversed insofar as appealed from, on the facts and in the exercise of discretion, without costs or disbursements, and that branch of the appellant's motion which was to vacate so much of the judgment entered April 11, 2012, as was entered against it upon its failure to appear or answer the complaint and for leave to serve a late answer is granted.
Considering, inter alia, the absence of prejudice to the plaintiff, the potentially meritorious nature of the defense, and the public policy in favor of resolving cases on the merits, the Supreme Court should have granted that branch of the appellant's motion which was to vacate so much of a judgment entered April 11, 2012, as was entered against it upon its failure to appear or answer the complaint and for leave to serve a late answer (see Albin v First Nationwide Network Mtge. Co., 188 AD2d 575 [1992]; see also I.J. Handa, P.C. v Imperato, 159 AD2d 484 [1990]).
Skelos, J.E, Dickerson, Cohen and Duffy, JJ., concur.