Ordered that the order is affirmed, with costs.
To successfully oppose the defendant's motion for leave to enter a default judgment upon the plaintiffs failure to serve a timely reply to his counterclaim, the plaintiff was required to demonstrate a reasonable excuse for its delay in serving a reply and a potentially meritorious defense ( see Twer sky v Kasaks, 24 AD3d 657, 658; Beizer v Funk, 5 AD3d 619; Bensimon v Fishman, 242 AD2d 551). In this case, the plaintiff met its burden. Therefore, the Supreme Court providently exercised its discretion in denying the defendant's motion for leave to enter a default judgment based upon the plaintiff's failure to timely serve a reply to his counterclaim and in granting the plaintiffs cross motion for leave to serve a late reply.