The motion was properly denied, plaintiff having submitted sufficient evidence to demonstrate a meritorious cause of action, and defendants having failed to demonstrate prejudice attributable to the delay (Byk-Chemie GmbH v. Efka Chems., 161 A.D.2d 196). Despite plaintiff's revocation of the "open" stipulation allowing defendants an indefinite extension of time to answer, plaintiff's attorney's contact with defendants' insurer, while not the equivalent of on-going negotiations, was such as to indicate that plaintiff did not intend to abandon the action (Hinds v. 2461 Realty Corp., 169 A.D.2d 629, 632).
Concur — Murphy, P.J., Carro, Milonas, Wallach and Smith, JJ.