NIKITA v. PARFOMAK

Ordered that the order is affirmed insofar as appealed from, with costs.

The Supreme Court properly granted that branch of the defendants' motion which was, in effect, for leave to reargue ( see CPLR 2221 [d]) and, upon reargument, properly, in effect, denied that branch of the plaintiffs' prior motion which was for leave to enter a default judgment against the defendant Kyonk Parfomak and in deeming his answer timely served. The defendant Kyonk Parfomak's delay in answering was properly excused given the brief and nondeliberate delay, the lack of prejudice to the plaintiffs, the existence of potentially meritorious defenses, and the policy favoring the resolution of cases on their merits ( see CPLR 2004; Stuart v Kushner, 39 AD3d 535; Schonfeld v Blue White Food Prods. Corp., 29 AD3d 673; Yonkers Rib House, Inc. v 1789 Cent. Park Corp., 19 AD3d 687).