Court Opinion

ID: 9945523
Source: CourtListenerOpinion
Date Created: 2024-02-27 21:10:00.207337+00
Date Added: 2024-06-11T14:25:31.416108
License: Public Domain

Gelwan v de Ratafia
               2024 NY Slip Op 30583(U)
                   February 23, 2024
           Supreme Court, New York County
        Docket Number: Index No. 654525/2016
                 Judge: David B. Cohen
Cases posted with a "30000" identifier, i.e., 2013 NY Slip
 Op 30001(U), are republished from various New York
 State and local government sources, including the New
  York State Unified Court System's eCourts Service.
 This opinion is uncorrected and not selected for official
                       publication.
                                                                                                                       INDEX NO. 654525/2016
  NYSCEF DOC. NO. 468                                                                                            RECEIVED NYSCEF: 02/23/2024

                                   SUPREME COURT OF THE STATE OF NEW YORK
                                             NEW YORK COUNTY
            PRESENT:             HON. DAVID B. COHEN                                                 PART   58
                                                                                      Justice
            ----------------------------------------------------------------- ----------------X
                                                                                                     INDEX NO.         654525/2016
             LLOYD A. GELWAN and AMANDA NELSON,
                                                                                                     MOTION SEQ. NO.       011
                                                         Plaintiffs,

                                                 - V -

             GEORGES-LUCIEN DE RATAFIA, DIANE ACKROYD, THE                                             DECISION + ORDER ON
             WARSHAWSKY LAW FIRM, STEVEN M. WARSHAWSKY,                                                      MOTION
             and THE COUNTY OF COLUMBIA, NEW YORK,

                                                         Defendants.
            ------------------------------------------------------------------- --------------X

            The following e-filed documents, listed by NYSCEF document number (Motion 011) 449, 450, 451, 452,
            453,454,455,456,457,458,459,460,461,462,464
            were read on this motion to/for                                                       JUDGMENT - DEFAULT

                      Plaintiff Lloyd Gelwan, who is self-represented, moves for entry of a default against

            defendants Georges-Lucien de Ratafia and Diane Ackroyd, based on their untimely answer to the

            Second Amended Complaint in this action. De Ratafia and Ackroyd (cross-movant defendants)

            oppose the motion and cross-move, pursuant to CPLR 3012, to, among other things, compel

            Gelwan to accept an untimely answer.

                                                     I. Factual and Procedural Background

                      By decision and order entered January 11, 2022, Gelwan was granted leave to amend the

            complaint (NYSCEF Doc No. 149).                            Shortly thereafter, he purportedly served his Second

            Amended Complaint upon cross-movant defendants (Doc No. 150). Cross-movant defendants

            moved to dismiss that complaint, but their motion was denied by decision and order entered

            September 11, 2023 (Doc Nos. 418-421 ). Gelwan served a notice of entry of the September 2023

            order on October 16, 2023 (Doc No. 454), and defendants served a verified answer on November

            20, 2023 (Doc No. 462).                  Gelwan now moves for a default judgment against cross-movant

             654525/2016 GELWAN, LLOYD A. vs. DERATAFIA, LUCIEN                                                        Page 1 of4
             Motion No. 011

[* 1]                                                                       1 of 4
                                                                                                 INDEX NO. 654525/2016
  NYSCEF DOC. NO. 468                                                                    RECEIVED NYSCEF: 02/23/2024

            defendants, alleging that they failed to timely answer (Doc No. 449). Cross-movant defendants

            oppose the motion and cross-move to compel Gelwan to accept an untimely answer (Doc Nos.

            460-461), which he opposes (Doc No. 464).

                                            II. Legal Analysis and Conclusions

           A. Cross-Movant Defendants' Cross-Motion to Compel Acceptance of Untimely Answer

                   Cross-movant defendants contend that Gelwan should be compelled to accept their

            untimely answer because the proper balance of factors weighs in their favor. They argue that the

            delay in serving the answer was short, there was a reasonable excuse for the delay because their

            attorney was tending to an ill family member, Gelwan was not prejudiced by untimely service, and

            public policy favors resolving disputes on the merits. Gelwan maintains in opposition that cross-

            movant defendants' delay in answering was willful and substantial, he was prejudiced by that

            delay, and their excuse for the delay is insufficient.

                   "CPLR 3012(d) provides that a court has the discretionary power to extend the time to

            plead, or to compel acceptance of an untimely pleading upon such terms as may be just, provided

            that there is a showing of a reasonable excuse for the delay" (US. Bank NA. v Barker Project

            LLC, 220 AD3d 588, 588 [1st Dept 2023] [internal quotation marks and citations omitted]). Even

            if an excuse proffered is "hardly overwhelming," compelling acceptance of an untimely answer is

            warranted if that underwhelming excuse is accompanied by a delay in answering that was minimal,

            not willful, and caused no prejudice to the opposing party (see Matter ofThomas Anthony Holdings

            LLC v Goodbody, 210 AD3d 547, 547 [1st Dept 2022] [internal quotation marks and citation

            omitted]). There is also a "strong public policy in favor of litigating matters on the merits" that

            weighs in favor of compelling acceptance of an untimely answer (Hertz Vehs., LLC v Mollo, 171

            AD3d 651, 651 [1st Dept 2019]).

             654525/2016 GELWAN, LLOYD A. vs. DERATAFIA, LUCIEN                                  Page 2 of 4
             Motion No. 011

[* 2]                                                      2 of 4
                                                                                                  INDEX NO. 654525/2016
  NYSCEF DOC. NO. 468                                                                     RECEIVED NYSCEF: 02/23/2024

                   Here, cross-movant defendants' answer was untimely. They were served with notice of

            entry of the September 2023 order on October 16, 2023, which gave them until November 5, 2023,

            to answer. Thus, their answer dated November 20, 2023, was untimely.

                   However, considering the excuse proffered by cross-movant defendants, the brief delay,

            and the strong underlying public policy, among other things, the circumstances weigh in favor of

            compelling Gelwan to accept the untimely answer. In his affirmation, counsel for cross-movant

            defendants averred that the answer was not timely filed because he was caring for an ill relative

            and mistakenly thought it had been filed previously. Although that excuse is best described as a

            misapprehension on the part of counsel, reasonable misapprehension is sufficient to excuse a delay

            (see Underwood v Grey, 187 AD2d 390, 390 [1st Dept 1992] [finding defendants' refusal to

            answer because they believed plaintiff needed leave to amend complaint was "reasonable

            misapprehension" that "constituted reasonable excuse for the default"]), especially when viewed

            collectively with counsel's prompt action to reconcile his error and the minimal, unwilful delay

            that occurred (see Interboro Ins. Co. v Perez, 112 AD3d 483, 483 [1st Dept 2013]). Gelwan's

            contention that he was prejudiced by the delay because it has inhibited his ability to conduct

            discovery is also unavailing. Deadline extensions and courtesies of additional time to act during

            discovery have been a regular feature of this litigation, and a brief delay of less than 30 days has

            not prejudiced his ability to move this action forward.

                   Therefore, cross-movant defendants' cross-motion to compel Gelwan to accept the

            untimely answer is granted (see Matter of Thomas Anthony Holdings LLC, 210 AD3d at 547

            [affirming granting of CPLR 3012(d) motion after finding underwhelming excuse adequate to

            allow for service oflate answer because "delay was minimal, was not willful, and did not prejudice

            respondents"]).

             654525/2016 GELWAN, LLOYD A. vs. DERATAFIA, LUCIEN                                   Page 3 of 4
             Motion No. 011

[* 3]                                                      3 of 4
                                                                                                    INDEX NO. 654525/2016
  NYSCEF DOC. NO. 468                                                                         RECEIVED NYSCEF: 02/23/2024

            B. Ge/wan 's Motion for a Default Judgment

                      In granting cross-movant defendants' cross-motion, Gelwan's motion for a default

           judgment against cross-movant defendants is rendered moot (see id. [denying motion for default

           judgment as moot after granting cross-motion to serve a late reply to opposing party's

            counterclaims]).

                      The parties remaining contentions are either unavailing, or do not need to be addressed

            given the findings described above.

                      Accordingly, it is hereby:

                      ORDERED that the cross-motion by defendants Georges-Lucien de Ratafia and Diane

            Ackroyd to compel plaintiff Lloyd Gelwan to accept their untimely answer is granted; and it is

            further

                      ORDERED that the verified answer dated November 20, 2023 (NYSCEF Doc No. 462) is

            deemed to be served and filed as of the date of this order; and it is further

                      ORDERED that the motion by plaintiff Lloyd Gelwan for a default judgment against

            defendants Georges-Lucien de Ratafia and Diane Ackroyd is denied as moot; and it is further

                      ORDERED that the parties are directed to appear for a status conference with Part 58's

            Special Master, Richard Swanson, on May 7, 2024 at 10:00 a.m.

                      2/23/2024
                        DATE                                                      DAVID B. COHEN, J.S.C.

                                      ~
             CHECK ONE:                    CASE DISPOSED                  NON-FINAL DISPOSITION

                                           GRANTED         □ DENIED       GRANTED IN PART          □ OTHER
             APPLICATION:                  SETTLE ORDER                   SUBMIT ORDER

             CHECK IF APPROPRIATE:         INCLUDES TRANSFER/REASSIGN     FIDUCIARY APPOINTMENT    □ REFERENCE

             654525/2016 GELWAN, LLOYD A. vs. DERATAFIA, LUCIEN                                     Page4 of 4
             Motion No. 011

[* 4]                                                        4 of 4