Majority
—Appeal from an order of Supreme Court, Erie County (Sconiers, J.), entered January 7, 2002, which granted the motion of defendant R.S. Maher & Son, Inc. to vacate a default judgment.
It is hereby ordered that the order so appealed from be and the same hereby is unanimously affirmed without costs.
Memorandum: This action seeks damages for serious injuries allegedly sustained by plaintiff Dean C. Hayes as a result of a collision between his pickup truck and a Mack truck owned by defendant R.S. Maher & Son, Inc. (Maher). Plaintiffs appeal from an order of Supreme Court granting the motion of Maher to vacate a default judgment previously entered against it as a consequence of its failure to answer the complaint. The court properly granted Maher’s motion. Maher demonstrated a meritorious defense to the action and reasonable excuse for its default (see Di Lorenzo, Inc. v Dutton Lbr. Co., 67 NY2d 138 , 141 [1986]; see also Massachusetts Asset Fin. Corp. v Di Laura, 299 AD2d 948 [2002]; Yacone v Ryan Homes, 216 AD2d 963 [1995]), which resulted from the inadvertence of Maher’s liability insurer (see generally 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]; Kondolf v National Grange Mut. Ins. Co., 259 AD2d 1021 [1999]; Barajas v Toll Bros., 247 AD2d 242 [1998]; Chu-Reimer v Metpath, Inc., 227 AD2d 860 , 861 [1996]). “Given the brief overall delay, the promptness with which [Maher] moved to vacate the judgment, the lack of any intention on [Maher’s] part to abandon the action, plaintiffs’ failure to demonstrate any prejudice attributable to the delay, and the preference for resolving disputes on the merits, we conclude that [Maher’s] [brief] default in ap
Cases cited
- Eugene Di Lorenzo, Inc. v. A. C. Dutton Lumber Co. 67 NY2d 138 at 141 p. 1018
- Massachusetts Asset Financing Corp. v. DiLaura 299 AD2d 948 p. 1018
- Parker v. I.E.S.I. N. Y. Corp. 279 AD2d 395 p. 1018
- Barajas v. Toll Bros. 247 AD2d 242 p. 1018
- Yayin Chu-Reimer v. Metpath, Inc. 227 AD2d 860 at 861 p. 1018
- Mayville v. Wal-Mart Stores, Inc. 273 AD2d 944 at 945 p. 1019