By order entered July 22, 2019, the Civil Court granted defendant's motion. Defendant established that it timely appeared in the action by mailing the answer to plaintiff's attorney on November 1, 2018 (see CPLR 320 [a] ; 2103 [b] [2]; CCA 2102 ; Goonan v New York City Tr. Auth. , 74 AD3d 747 [2010] ). While plaintiff's attorney claimed that her office did not receive the answer, her affirmation and the affidavit of counsel's employee were insufficient to rebut defendant's proof of service of the answer.

Contrary to the plaintiffs' further contention, the appellant was not required to file his notice of appearance with the Supreme Court. There is no statutory or other requirement that a notice of appearance, timely served upon a plaintiff, must also be filed with the clerk of the relevant court in order for a defendant to appear in the action (cf. Goonan v. New York City Tr. Auth., 74 A.D.3d 747, 748, 902 N.Y.S.2d 159 ). Moreover, since the appellant did not have proper notice that this action was e-filed, it was appropriate for the appellant to serve the notice of appearance on the plaintiffs without e-filing it (cf. 22 NYCRR 202.5–bb ).

The defendant mortgagors have not proffering a legally sufficient explanation for the more than three year delay in moving to amend, and they waited until after the plaintiff already moved for summary judgment (see, Majestic Invs., Ltd. v Lopez, 111 AD2d 844, supra). In this case, the original answer was interposed on or about November 12, 2013 (see, CPLR 320[a]; Goonan vNew York City Tr. Auth., 74 AD3d 747, 902 NYS2d 159 [2d Dept 2010]; Cerrito v Galioto, 216 AD2d 265, 627 NYS2d 767 [2d Dept 1995] [A defendant appears, inter alia, by serving an answer upon the plaintiff]). Even though any motions would have been held in abeyance during the approximate six month period that foreclosure settlement conferences were held, the last such conference was held on September 29, 2015, approximately seventeen months before the plaintiff moved for summary judgment in this action.

CPLR 320 governs appearances by defendants and provides that a defendant may appear in an action in one of three ways: (1) by serving an answer, (2) by serving a notice of appearance, or (3) by making a motion which has the effect of extending the time to answer (see Tsionis v Eriora Corp., 123 AD3d 694, 998 NYS2d 117 [2d Dept 2014]). There is thus no requirement that an answer of a notice of appearance be filed with the clerk of the court effect an appearance in an action (see Goonan v New York City Tr. Auth., 74 AD3d 747, 902 NYS2d 159 [2d Dept 2010]; see also Tsionis v Eriora Corp., 123 AD3d 694, supra). In cases wherein the plaintiff accepts a late answer without objection, the plaintiff will be deemed to have waived the right to object to the timeliness of the answer and the plaintiff's right to proceed against the defendant as if he or she were in default (see Glass v Captain Hulbert House, LLC, 103 AD3d 607, supra; Vazquez v Beharry, 82 AD3d 649, supra; Cole v Young, 28 AD3d 702, supra; Ligotti v Wilson, 287 AD2d 550, 731 NYS2d 473 [2d Dept 2001]).

To be entitled to the entry of a default judgment, the movant must establish proof of service of the summons and complaint, proof of facts constituting cognizable claims and proof of the defendant's default in answering or appearing (see CPLR 3215[f]; Woodson v Mendon Leasing Corp., 100 NY2d 62, 70-71, 760 NYS2d 727 [2003]; C & H Import & Export, Inc. v MNA Global, Inc., 79 AD3d 784, 912 NYS2d 428 [2d Dept 2010]). The failure to establish a default in answering or appearing due to improper service of process or otherwise warrants a denial of a motion to fix a default under CPLR 3215(f) (see Zareef v Lin Wong, 61 AD3d 749, 877 NYS2d 182 [2d Dept 2009]; George v Yoma Dev. Group, Inc., 83 AD3d 776, 920 NYS2d 696 [2d Dept 2011]; Goonan v New York City Tr. Auth., 74 AD3d 747,902 NYS2d 159 [2d Dept 2010]; see Friedman v Ostreicher, 22 AD 3d 798, 803 NYS2d 703 [2d Dept 2005]; Levi v Oberlander, 144 AD2d 546, 535 NYS2d 958 [2d Dept 1988]).