ORDERED that the order is affirmed insofar as appealed from, with costs.
In support of their motion for leave to enter judgment against the defendants upon their respective defaults in answering the complaint, the plaintiffs failed to proffer either an affidavit of the facts or a complaint verified by a party with personal knowledge of the facts (see, CPLR 3215[f]; Fiorino v. Yung Poon Yung, A.D.2d [2d Dept., Mar. 19, 2001]). Therefore, the motion was properly denied. We have not considered the affidavit which was improperly submitted by the plaintiffs in their reply papers on the motion (see, McCullough v. Maurer, 268 A.D.2d 569; Hirsch v. Syrota, 253 A.D.2d 538; Russo v. Automotive Rentals, 247 A.D.2d 603). Under the circumstances of this case, the Supreme Court providently exercised its discretion in granting the defendants leave to serve late answers (see, Hermele v. Sumkin, A.D.2d [2d Dept., Apr. 9, 2001]).
SANTUCCI, J.P., S. MILLER, LUCIANO, FEUERSTEIN and ADAMS, JJ., concur.