Court Opinion

ID: 5748637
Source: CourtListenerOpinion
Date Created: 2022-01-12 16:53:31.493301+00
Date Added: 2024-06-11T08:41:13.396064
License: Public Domain

Order, Supreme Court, New York County (Emily Jane Goodman, J.), entered March 21, 2007, which, to the extent appealed from as limited by the briefs, denied plaintiffs’ motion for a default judgment, unanimously affirmed, without costs.
In this action alleging discrimination in housing, retaliatory eviction and personal injury, defendants demonstrated a reasonable excuse for their delay in answering the complaint (see Castillo v Garzon-Ruiz, 290 AD2d 288, 290 [2002]; Parker v I.E.S.I. N.Y. Corp., 279 AD2d 395 [2001], lv dismissed 96 NY2d 927 [2001]; Barajas v Toll Bros., 247 AD2d 242 [1998]; Ganvey Merchandising Corp. u Knudsen El. Corp., 169 AD2d 518 [1991]). We note that they established prima facie meritorious defenses to plaintiffs’ claims. Plaintiffs have not demonstrated that they suffered any prejudice as a result of the delay (see Castillo, 290 AD2d at 290; Share v Village of Westhampton Beach, 121 AD2d 887 [1986]). This State’s public policy favors determinations on the merits (see Guzetti v City of New York, 32 AD3d 234 [2006]). Concur—Lippman, PJ., Tom, Williams and Acosta, JJ.