Biolsi Law Group, P.C., New York (Steven Alexander Biolsi of counsel), for appellant.

Frenkel, Lambert, Weiss, Weisman & Gordon, LLP, Bay Shore (Ruth O'Connor of counsel), for respondent.

Order, Supreme Court, New York County (Arthur F. Engoron, J.), entered March 30, 2022, which, to the extent appealed from, denied defendant's motion to toll interest on the judgment of foreclosure and sale, unanimously affirmed, without costs.

Supreme Court providently exercised its discretion in declining to toll interest running on defendant's mortgage (see U.S. Bank, N.A. v Cordero, 191 AD3d 490, 491 [1st Dept 2021]; Bank of N.Y. Mellon v George, 186 AD3d 661, 663 [2d Dept 2020]). Defendant claimed that the mortgage interest should be tolled based on plaintiff's delays in bringing and prosecuting this foreclosure action. However, defendant failed to demonstrate that plaintiff caused an unexplained lengthy delay of the action or committed any wrongdoing (see Wells Fargo Bank, N.A. v Chun Fei Lee, 208 AD3d 1384, 1386 [2d Dept 2022]; GMAC Mtge., LLC v Yun, 206 AD3d 798, 798-799 [2d Dept 2022]). Plaintiff commenced this action seven months after being assigned the mortgage, and the six-month delay in filing the notice of settlement was explained by a detailed affirmation of counsel that, contrary to defendant's contention, was not "perfunctory and unsubstantiated" (Galaxy Gen. Contr. Corp. v 2201 7th Ave. Realty LLC, 95 AD3d 789, 790 [1st Dept 2012]). The delay between plaintiff's summary judgment motions was due in part to settlement negotiations in which both parties participated (see People's United Bank v Patio Gardens III, LLC, 189 AD3d 1622, 1623 [2d Dept 2020]), and we affirmed Supreme Court's previous finding that plaintiff established good cause for the delay in filing the second summary judgment motion (see Bank of N.Y. Mellon v Davis, 209 AD3d 426 [1st Dept 2022]). Concur—Renwick, P.J., Kapnick, Gesmer, Pitt-Burke, Higgitt, JJ.