The motion court providently exercised its discretion in considering the factors under CPLR 3012 (d). The delay in answering was neither short nor particularly lengthy, and the excuse for the delay was properly found not reasonable because the answer was already late at the time plaintiffs served the second complaint that defendant claimed had led it to believe that the instant complaint had been abandoned by plaintiffs. Nevertheless, the defense that the claim for declaratory...
Let's get started
Welcome to the leading source of independent legal reporting
Sign on now to see your case.
Or view more than 10 million decisions and orders.
- Updated daily.
- Uncompromising quality.
- Complete, Accurate, Current.
