SeeFawn Second Ave. LLC v. First Am. Title Ins. Co. , 192 A.D.3d 478, 140 N.Y.S.3d 399, 399-400 (1st Dep't 2021). (Sussner Decl., Ex. J).

Here, Martinez was named as Jane Doe and represents, albeit through counsel, that she did not realize she could file an answer. Though the motion could be denied, (seeWilmington Trust, National Association v Ashe , 189 AD3d 1130, 1132, 138 NYS3d 515 [2nd Dept 2020] ( CPLR § 3012(d) motion denied where defendant failed to submit her own affidavit); Fawn Second Avenue LLC v First American Title Insurance Company , 192 AD3d 478, 140 NYS3d 399 [1st Dept 2021] ), the court accepts the late answer in the interests of judicial economy, because it does not allege any facts not already known, and because it does not change the ultimate outcome for Martinez. Thus, the proposed answer is deemed served and filed.

When the summons is served without a complaint, and the defendant has demanded the complaint or made an appearance, the plaintiff must serve the complaint within twenty days or face dismissal of the action (CPLR 3012 (b)). To prevail on a motion to compel acceptance of a complaint untimely served under CPLR 3012 (d), the plaintiff must demonstrate a reasonable excuse for the default and a meritorious claim (see e.g. Fawn Second Ave. LLC v First Am. Title Ins. Co., 192 A.D.3d 478 [1st Dept 2021]). Other relevant factors considered by the court are the length of the delay, the presence of prejudice to the defendant, and the strong public policy in favor of resolving cases on the merits (Wimbledon Fin. Master Fund, Ltd. v Weston Cap. Mgmt. LLC, 150 A.D.3d 427, 428 [1st Dept 2017]).