Order unanimously reversed, without costs, motion granted and action dismissed. Memorandum: The record in this case fails to disclose any sufficient excuse for the delay of more than 20 months in service of a complaint following a demand therefor. As we have stated in Huether v Blad ( 35 A.D.2d 774, 775), the "`one asking for excuse for great delay in prosecution comes with a heavy burden of explanation (Goldstein v Wickett, 3 A.D.2d 135; Walker v Ferri, 5 A.D.2d 24; Nicotera v Aliasso, 22 A.D.2d 758; Gino v Syracuse Mem. Hosp., 23 A.D.2d 964).' (Hamilton v Dudley, 27 A.D.2d 701)". In Bamford v Kaunitz ( 37 A.D.2d 682) we said: "Excuses such as those offered by plaintiff, which have been characterized as `Law Office Failures', (Sortino v Fisher, 20 A.D.2d 25, 29) `have been weighed in the balance many times and found wanting.' (Goldberg v Soifer, 30 A.D.2d 533, 534.) The excuse of illness of the attorney of record is also inadequate when it does not appear that the condition existed throughout the period of delay (Alaimo v D F Tr., 35 A.D.2d 776; Jerge v Fuglewicz, 36 A.D.2d 890) ". The affidavit of merit submitted in opposition to the motion is unsatisfactory. Delia v Ramapo Gen. Hosp. ( 47 A.D.2d 522). On the record it was an improvident exercise of discretion to deny defendant's motion to dismiss the action, made pursuant to CPLR 3012 (subd. [b]).