SUMBA v. SAMPAIO

Ordered that the order is affirmed, with costs.

The defendants failed to make an adequate factual showing that their failure to timely file a jury demand was the result of inadvertence or other excusable default ( see Behrmann v Heinz Pet Prods., 215 AD2d 619; Tarantino v City of New York, 148 AD2d 601; Joseph v Exxon Corp., 83 AD2d 549; cf Lane v Marshall, 89 AD2d 579; Calspan Corp. v Fingermatrix, Inc., 84 AD2d 826). Accordingly, the Supreme Court properly exercised its discretion in denying the defendants' motion.