DENIAL OF DEFENDANT’S MOTION TO SERVE A LATE ANSWER WAS AN ABUSE OF DISCRETION; THE DELAY WAS SHORT (18 DAYS), CREATED NO PREJUDICE, AND THE LAW OFFICE FAILURE WAS REASONABLE (FIRST DEPT).

The First Department, reversing Supreme Court, determined defendant’s (Husain’s) motion to serve a late answer should have been granted:

The 18-day delay in answering the complaint was relatively short and plaintiff suffered no prejudice from the delay; indeed, Husain has already been deposed by the wife’s counsel … . In addition, the law office failure that occasioned the delay was reasonable, and there is no evidence that it was due to willfulness. Husain’s counsel explained that he inadvertently missed the deadline for answering the amended complaint because of work obligations related to this action — namely, preparing for and participating in an April 10, 2025 arbitration hearing concerning related claims, as well as preparing for a June 2025 trial in this action — and because of a break for a religious holiday … . Given the surrounding circumstances, Supreme Court should have granted the motion, especially in light of the strong public policy in favor of resolving cases on the merits … .Dalessandro v Dalessandro, 2026 NY Slip Op 06000, First Dept 10-15-26

Practice Point: Consult this decision for insight into the factors a court should consider when ruling on a motion to serve a late answer.