Comments on: 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).

Comments on: 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). https://www.newyorkappellatedigest.com/2026/10/15/denial-of-defendants-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/ Wed, 21 Oct 2026 18:26:49 +0000 hourly 1 https://wordpress.org/?v=7.1.3