We affirm. Initially, defendants contend that Supreme Court erred in the order in which it determined the relief sought on the parties' respective motions, arguing that the court was required to assess its cross-motion to interpose a late answer before determining plaintiff's motion for default. However, regardless of whether the court was addressing defendant's request to file a late answer or deciding whether to grant plaintiff's contested motion for default judgment, defendants were still required to demonstrate a reasonable excuse for their delay (see Pare v Pare, 222 AD3d 765, 765 [2d Dept 2023]; Carrington Mtge. Servs., LLC v Fiore, 206 AD3d 1306, 1307 [3d Dept 2022]; see Kegelman v Town of Otsego, 203 AD3d 82, 85 [3d Dept 2021], lv dismissed 38 NY3d 1124 [2022]). To this end, we find no error in Supreme Court's analysis, as it first determined the threshold issue of reasonable excuse in denying defendants' cross-motion. That determination "is addressed to the court's sound discretion, subject to reversal only where there has been a clear abuse of that discretion" (Matter of CCAP Auto Lease Ltd. [*2]v Savannah Car Care, Inc., 211 AD3d 1210, 1212-1213 [3d Dept 2022] [internal quotation marks and citations omitted]; see U.S. Bank, N.A. v Clarkson, 187 AD3d 1376, 1377 [3d Dept 2020]; Sharestates Inv., LLC v Hercules, 166 AD3d 700, 701 [2d Dept 2018]).