Metropolitan Property & Casualty Insurance v. Braun

Order, Supreme Court, New York County (Saliann Scarpulla, J.), entered on or about May 8, 2013, which denied plaintiffs’ motion for a default judgment and granted defendants’ cross motion for an extension of time to interpose an answer, unanimously affirmed, without costs.

The motion court providently exercised it discretion in granting defendants’ cross motion for an extension of time to interpose an answer. Under the circumstances, although defendants’ assertion of law office failure “is not particularly compelling, it constitutes good cause for the delay” (Lamar v City of New York, 68 AD3d 449 , 449 [1st Dept 2009] [internal quotation marks omitted]). There is no evidence that plaintiffs have been prejudiced, and the record shows that plaintiffs had previously agreed to an extension of time for defendants to answer. Contrary to plaintiffs’ contentions, a meritorious defense was not required for defendants to be granted an extension of time to answer (see Interboro Ins. Co. v Perez, 112 AD3d 483 [1st Dept 2013]; Cirillo v Macy’s, Inc., 61 AD3d 538 , 540 [1st Dept 2009]).

Concur — Mazzarelli, J.E, Renwick, Andrias, Richter and Feinman, JJ.