Opinion
Submitted May 24, 2000.
July 31, 2000.
In an action to recover damages for personal injuries, the plaintiff appeals from an order of the Supreme Court, Kings County (I. Aronin, J.), dated September 22, 1999, which denied his motion for leave to enter a judgment against the defendants upon their default in answering the complaint and granted the defendants' cross motion for leave to serve their answer.
Grundfast Grundfast, Centereach, N.Y. (Robert D. Grundfast of counsel), for appellant.
Bellard Elber (Carol R. Finocchio, New York, N.Y. [Lisa M. Comeau] of counsel), for respondents.
Before: CORNELIUS J. O'BRIEN, J.P., MYRIAM J. ALTMAN, WILLIAM D. FRIEDMANN, LEO F. McGINITY, NANCY E. SMITH, JJ.
DECISION ORDER
ORDERED that the order is affirmed, with costs.
The Supreme Court providently exercised its discretion in denying the plaintiff's motion and granting the defendants' cross motion. The defendants set forth both a reasonable excuse for the delay in answering and a meritorious defense (see, Young v. Mauch, 268 A.D.2d 583; Calemine v. Hobler, 263 A.D.2d 495; Bogorad v. Fitzpatrick, 38 A.D.2d 923, affd 31 N.Y.2d 984). The defendants' delay in serving their answer did not result in prejudice to the plaintiff, and there was no showing that the delay was in any way deliberate (see, Conti v. Valinoti, 206 A.D.2d 345; Valencia v. Astro Datsun, 137 A.D.2d 519; Murphy v. D. V. Waste Control Corp., 124 A.D.2d 573).