Opinion
2003-1486 KC.
Decided October 29, 2004.
Appeal by plaintiffs from an order of the Civil Court, Kings County (M. Solomon, J.), entered on August 20, 2003, which denied their motion for leave to enter a default judgment and granted defendant leave to serve a late answer.
Order unanimously affirmed without costs.
PRESENT: PESCE, P.J., ARONIN and PATTERSON, JJ.
The court did not improvidently exercise its discretion in excusing defendant's default resulting from law office failure ( see CPLR 2005) and granting defendant leave to serve a late answer. There is no evidence that the default was willful or that plaintiffs were prejudiced thereby. Defendant, moreover, has shown the existence of a meritorious defense. Under these circumstances, and in consideration of public policy in favor of resolving cases on the merits, the order of the court, which denied plaintiff's motion to enter a default judgment and granted defendant leave to serve a late answer, is affirmed ( see Vita v. Alstom Signaling, Inc., 308 AD2d 582, 583; Lefkowitz v. Kaye, Scholer, Fierman, Hays Handler, 271 AD2d 576, 577; see also Goodman v. New York City Health Hosps. Corp., 2 AD3d 581, [2003]; Drake v. Drake, 296 AD2d 566, [2002]).