The record simply does not support plaintiff's claim that defendants' failure to appear at the compliance conference was part of a persistent pattern of delay, or otherwise undermine defendants' attorney's representation that the reason he did not appear at the conference was because he miscalendared its date (CPLR 2005; see Telep v. Republic El. Corp., 267 AD2d 57, 58; cf. Fink Weinberger v. Rosenkrantz, 252 AD2d 368). As to the merits, we cannot say, at this juncture, that application for insurance was fraudulent.