Russo & Gould, LLP, Buffalo, NY (David Gould and Trishe L. A. Hynes of counsel), for defendant/third-party plaintiff-appellant.

In an action to recover damages for personal injuries, etc., the defendant/third-party plaintiff appeals from an order of the Supreme Court, Kings County (Reginald A. Boddie, J.), dated November 19, 2020. The order denied the defendant/third-party plaintiff's motion for leave to enter a default judgment against the third-party defendants.

Ordered that the order is affirmed, without costs or disbursements.

The defendant/third-party plaintiff served the third-party defendants pursuant to CPLR 308 (2) by delivering copies of, inter alia, the third-party summons and complaint to a person of suitable age and discretion at the address of the third-party defendants' usual place of abode on February 11, 2019, and by mailing copies to the same address on February 12, 2019. The proofs of service were purportedly filed on April 2, 2019, well beyond the 20-day filing period required by CPLR 308 (2). The defendant/third-party plaintiff moved for leave to enter a default judgment against the third-party defendants, and the third-party defendants opposed the motion on the ground that they had already served a third-party answer. The Supreme Court denied the defendant/third-party plaintiff's motion, and the defendant/third-party plaintiff appeals. We affirm.

While the failure to file a timely proof of service is a curable procedural irregularity, here, the defendant/third-party plaintiff did not obtain an order permitting a late filing of proof of service (see Wilmington Trust, N.A. v Shasho, 197 AD3d 534, 537 [2021]; Pipinias v J. Sackaris & Sons, Inc., 116 AD3d 749, 750 [2014]; Zareef v Lin Wong, 61 AD3d 749, 749 [2009]; Bank of New York v Schwab, 97 AD2d 450, 450-451 [1983]; Marazita v Nelbach, 91 AD2d 604 [1982]; cf. Weininger v Sassower, 204 AD2d 715, 716 [1994]). Accordingly, the late filings were nullities and the third-party defendants' time to answer never began to run (see Pipinias v J. Sackaris & Sons, Inc., 116 AD3d at 750; Zareef v Lin Wong, 61 AD3d at 749; Bank of New York v Schwab, 97 AD2d at 450-451; Marazita v Nelbach, 91 AD2d at 604). Since the third-party defendants were not in default, the defendant/third-party plaintiff's motion for leave to enter a default judgment against the third-party defendants was properly denied (see Pipinias v J. Sackaris & Sons, Inc., 116 AD3d at 750; Zareef v Lin Wong, 61 AD3d at 749-750; Bank of New York v Schwab, 97 AD2d at 450-451; Marazita v Nelbach, 91 AD2d at 604). Barros, J.P., Connolly, Christopher and Genovesi, JJ., concur.