ANTONIOUS v. MUHAMMED

We agree with the IAS Court that plaintiffs' prosecution of a duplicative action in Federal court created confusion, such that it cannot be said that defendants' failure to timely serve answers in this action was deliberately dilatory or evinced an intention to abandon the defense of this action (see, Cohen v Pegalis Wachsman, 99 A.D.2d 457; Marr v S.G.S.G. Constr. Corp., 89 A.D.2d 513). No prejudice is discernable from the relatively short delay, answers having been served in the identical Federal action that was being actively litigated (see, Cirano, S.p.A. v Pantstudio Ltd., 179 A.D.2d 361), and, as the IAS Court found, meritorious defenses having been raised.

Concur — Sullivan, J.P., Ellerin, Wallach, Kupferman and Ross, JJ.