292 AD2d 568, supra; Dal Youn Chung v Farberov, 285 AD2d 524 [2nd Dept.
2001]). The Department did not show that the proposed amendment will cause it prejudice or
surprise.
That branch of the cross motion by plaintiff Roshodesh which is for a default judgment
against defendant Plotch is denied. Defendant Plotch alleges that upon the receipt of the
summons and complaint in this action he retained an attorney to represent him. He subsequently
learned in early March, 2010 that his attorney had not appeared or answered for him. He
immediately retained his present attorneys, Baron and Baron, to represent him in this action, and
they served an answer on his behalf or about March 16, 2010. The plaintiff's attorney rejected the
answer as untimely. Defendant Plotch alleges that he purchased the cooperative unit in good faith
and for value.
[*6]
The motion by defendant Plotch for an order, pursuant to
CPLR 3012(d), compelling plaintiff Roshodesh to accept his answer to the complaint is granted.
Defendant Plotch offered a reasonable excuse for his default and a potentially meritorious
defense (see, CPLR 3012[d]; 599 Ralph Ave. Development, LLC v 799 Sterling, 34 AD3d 726
[2nd Dept. 2006]; Watson v
Pollacchi, 32 AD3d 565 [3rd Dept. 2006]; Skrabalak v Finn, 258 AD2d 719
[3rd Dept. 1999]). The plaintiff's excuse of law office failure is reasonable (see, Watson v Pollacchi, 32 AD3d 565,
supra; American Sec. Ins. Co. v Williams, 176 AD2d 1094 [3rd Dept. 1991]).
Insofar as a meritorious defense is concerned, defendant Plotch has alleged that he was a good
faith purchaser for value and without notice of any defect, a matter affecting the remedies
available to the plaintiff (see, U.S. Bank Nat. Ass'n v Vanvliet, 24 AD3d 906 [3rd