Opinion
May 13, 1999
Appeal from the Supreme Court, Bronx County (Jerry Crispino, J.).
Although defendant's submission of a letter in response to the summons and complaint did not constitute an answer or appearance (see, Matter of Kimball, 155 N.Y. 62, writ of error dismissed 174 U.S. 158), it cannot be said that her resulting default was willful since defendant, who was unrepresented by counsel at the time, appears to have reasonably believed that the letter sufficed to inform opposing counsel of facts dispositive of plaintiff's claim, namely, that defendant was not a party to the underlying real estate transaction and did not execute an assumption of the mortgage plaintiff sought to enforce against her. Accordingly, in light of the circumstances attending defendant's default and defendant's clear presentation of a prima facie meritorious defense (see, Tat Sang Kwong v. Budge-Wood Laundry Serv., 97 A.D.2d 691), the action against defendant should be litigated on the merits.
Concur — Nardelli, J. P., Wallach, Lerner and Andrias, JJ.