Generally, if only one of the prongs is satisfied, the motion is denied. See, e.g., Supreme Court issued Order on September 6, 2019 In re Lindner, ___ N.J. ___ (2019); In the Matter of Michael David Lindner, Jr., DRB 18-254 (January 30, 2019) (motion denied because the attorney failed to assert a reasonable explanation for failing to answer the complaint); In re Porwich, 205 N.J. 230 (2011); In the Matter of Alan S. Porwich, DRB 10-279 (December 14, 2010) (motion denied; although the attorney's personal problems might have excused his failure to file an answer, he did not provide a meritorious defense to allegations of the complaint); In re Goldsmith, 201 N.J. 160 (2010); In the Matter of Jeff H. Goldsmith, DRB 09-230 (December 3, 2009) (motion denied because the attorney failed to satisfy the second prong of the test); and In re Abramowitz, 197 N.J. 504 (2009); In the Matter of Arnold M. Abramowitz, DRB 08-254 (December 10, 2008) (motion denied for failure to satisfy the first prong of the test). Here, respondent's assertion, that he did not file an answer because he was too overwhelmed to try to reply to the complaint, does not constitute a reasonable explanation for failing to file a timely answer.