It is hereby ordered that the order so appealed from be and the same hereby is unanimously affirmed without costs.
Memorandum: Supreme Court did not abuse its discretion in denying plaintiff's motion for a default judgment and granting the motion of defendant for an order compelling plaintiff to accept its late answer ( see CPLR 3012 [d]; Cleary v. East Syracuse-Minoa Cent. School Dist., 248 AD2d 1005; Better v. Town of Schodack, 169 AD2d 965; Goracy v. Burns, Brooks McNeil, 155 AD2d 256). "Public policy favors the resolution of a case on the merits, and a court has broad discretion to grant relief from a pleading default if there is a showing of merit to the defense, a reasonable excuse for the delay and it appears that the delay did not prejudice the other party" ( Cleary, 248 AD2d at 1005; see Lichtman v. Sears, Roebuck Co., 236 AD2d 373). The affidavit submitted by defendant establishes that the default was not willful and further establishes a meritorious defense ( see Saunders v. County of Washington, 255 AD2d 788, 790-791). Moreover, plaintiff has suffered no demonstrable prejudice from the three-week delay ( see Cleary, 248 AD2d at 1005).