Opinion
Submitted September 13, 2000.
October 16, 2000.
In an action to recover damages for personal injuries, etc., the plaintiffs appeal from an order of the Supreme Court, Kings County (Steinhardt, J.), dated November 23, 1999, which, in effect, denied their motion for leave to enter a judgment in their favor on the issue of liability upon the defendant's default in appearing or answering.
Stuart H. Finkelstein, Forest Hills, N.Y., for appellants.
Frank A. Composto, Brooklyn, N.Y., for respondent.
Before: CORNELIUS J. O'BRIEN, J.P., THOMAS R. SULLIVAN, GABRIEL M. KRAUSMAN, GLORIA GOLDSTEIN, ROBERT W. SCHMIDT, JJ.
DECISION ORDER
ORDERED that the order is reversed, on the law, with costs, and the motion is granted.
The Supreme Court improperly denied the plaintiffs' motion for leave to enter a judgment in their favor on the issue of liability upon the defendant's default in appearing or answering. The defendant failed to demonstrate either a reasonable excuse for the delay in serving her answer or a meritorious defense (see, Feiger v. Milgrom, 270 A.D.2d 452; Gurreri v. Village of Briarcliff Manor, 249 A.D.2d 508; Pumarejo-Garcia v. McDonough, 242 A.D.2d 374). The defendant's contention that the plaintiffs had agreed to allow her to serve a late answer is based on factual allegations which are dehors the record, and thus, is not reviewable on appeal (see, Knolls Cooperative Sec No. 2 v. Evans Dev. Corp., 169 A.D.2d 690).