Summary
In Franklin v. Williams (2 AD3d 400), Andrade v. Ranginwala (297 AD2d 691), Ennis vLema (supra), Kachar v. Berlin (296 AD2d 479), Batista v. Allstate Ins. Co. (289 AD2d 519), and Peters v. Pickard (143 AD2d 81), we confronted similar motions to vacate a defendant's default in answering or to compel acceptance of an answer.
Summary of this case from Harcztark v. Drive Variety, Inc.Opinion
2002-10723.
December 1, 2003.
In an action to recover damages for personal injuries, the plaintiffs appeal from an order of the Supreme Court, Kings County (Dabiri, J.), dated October 30, 2002, which granted the defendant's motion to vacate his default in answering.
Allen L. Rothenberg, (Pollack, Pollack, Isaac De Cicco, New York, New York [Bradley S. Hames and Brian J. Isaac] of counsel), for appellants.
Robert J. Passarelli, Babylon, N.Y., for respondent.
Before: SANDRA L. TOWNES, REINALDO E. RIVERA, JJ.
DECISION ORDER
ORDERED that the order is reversed, on the law, with costs, and the motion is denied.
It is well established that a party seeking to vacate a default in answering must demonstrate a justifiable excuse for the default and a meritorious defense ( see Hazen v. Bottiglieri, 286 A.D.2d 708; Miles v. Blue Label Trucking, 232 A.D.2d 382). The only excuse offered for failure to serve a timely answer was delay caused by the defendants' insurance carrier. This was insufficient ( see Hazen v. Bottiglieri, supra; Miles v. Blue Label Trucking, supra).
FLORIO, J.P., KRAUSMAN, LUCIANO, TOWNES and RIVERA, JJ., concur.