Ordered that the order is affirmed, with costs.
The Supreme Court providently exercised its discretion in granting the defendant's motion to vacate its default in answering and for an extension of time to answer pursuant to CPLR 3012 (d). The defendant demonstrated both a reasonable excuse for its brief delay in serving an answer, and potentially meritorious defenses. Furthermore, there is a strong public policy in favor of resolving cases on the merits, and the default was not willful, nor was there a showing of prejudice to the plaintiffs ( see Harcztark v. Drive Variety, Inc., 21 AD3d 876; Bunch v. Dollar Budget, Inc., 12 AD3d 391; Orwell Bldg. Corp. v. Bessaha, 5 AD3d 573; Sippin v. Gallardo, 287 AD2d 703).
The defendant's motion to quash the information subpoena was properly granted ( see CPLR 2304).