¶1The Supreme Court did not improvidently exercise its discretion in permitting the defendant to file a late answer. The delay on the part of the defendant was brief and the excuse for the delay was reasonable (see, CPLR 3012 [d]). Miller, J. P., Joy, Hart and Krausman, JJ., concur.
225 A.D.2d 666
Hulse v. Molt
Appellate Division of the Supreme Court of the State of New York
Decided March 18, 1996
Appellate Division of the Supreme Court of the State of New York · decided 1996-03-18
Decided 1996-03-18