Tanpinco v Royal Caribbean Intl.

Tanpinco v Royal Caribbean Intl. 2010 NY Slip Op 09014 [79 AD3d 484] December 7, 2010 Appellate Division, First Department Published by New York State Law Reporting Bureau pursuant to Judiciary Law § 431. As corrected through Wednesday, February 16, 2011

Maria Dolores Tanpinco et al., Appellants,
v
Royal Caribbean International et al., Defendants, Corporate Travel Services et al., Respondents.

—[*1] Eric Schneider, Kingston, for appellants.

Law Offices of Charles J. Siegel, New York (Peter E. Vairo of counsel), for respondents.

Order, Supreme Court, New York County (Milton A. Tingling, J.), entered June 16, 2009, which, upon plaintiff's motion for a default judgment against defendants Corporate Travel Services and Corporate Travel Services, Inc., and said defendants' motion to dismiss the complaint for failure to state a cause of action, directed defendants to serve their answer within 20 days, unanimously affirmed, without costs.

Defendants demonstrated a reasonable excuse for their delay in answering the complaint, i.e., that their insurance carrier failed to forward the complaint to counsel (see Heskel's W. 38th St. Corp. v Gotham Constr. Co. LLC, 14 AD3d 306, 307 [2005]). The record shows no willful default on defendants' part and no prejudice to plaintiffs as a result of the delay (see Pagan v Four Thirty Realty LLC, 50 AD3d 265 [2008]). Concur—Tom, J.P., Andrias, Sweeny, DeGrasse and RomÁn, JJ.