Opinion
November 3, 1986
Appeal from the Supreme Court, Dutchess County (Hillery, J.).
Ordered that the order and the amended order are affirmed, with one bill of costs.
Although the length of the defendants' delay in serving their answer (more than six months) cannot be considered minor (see, Association for Children with Learning Disabilities v Zafar, 115 A.D.2d 580; Klenk v Kent, 103 A.D.2d 1002, appeal dismissed 63 N.Y.2d 953), and the only explanation proffered for the delay was the negligence of the defendants' insurance broker, which is "`akin to a law office failure'" Strasser v Pendino, 92 A.D.2d 590, quoting from Bruno v Village of Port Chester, 77 A.D.2d 580, appeal dismissed 51 N.Y.2d 769), the court did not abuse its discretion in granting the defendants' motion, given that the defendants have established a meritorious defense, the delay did not result in any prejudice to the plaintiffs and there was no showing that the delay was in any way deliberate (see, Tugendhaft v Country Estates Assoc., 111 A.D.2d 846; Stolpiec v Wiener, 100 A.D.2d 931). As we have often pointed out, there is a long-established policy favoring the resolution of cases on their merits (see, Tugendhaft v Country Estates Assoc., supra; Salch v Paratore, 100 A.D.2d 845). We note that the court conditioned the vacatur of the default judgment upon the insurance carrier's payment to the plaintiffs of a $1,000 penalty (see, Tugendhaft v Country Estates Assoc., supra; Stolpiec v Wiener, supra). Mangano, J.P., Bracken, Brown and Eiber, JJ., concur.