KESELMAN v. CITY OF NEW YORK

Ordered that the order is affirmed, with costs.

The Supreme Court did not improvidently exercise its discretion in denying the plaintiffs motion. The defendants City of New York and Anibal Martinez provided a reasonable excuse for their short delay in answering, which was neither willful nor prejudicial to the plaintiff and demonstrated the existence of a meritorious defense ( see CPLR 5015 [a] [1]; Harris v City of New York, 30 AD3d 461, 463-464).