DECISION ORDER
ORDERED that the order is affirmed, with costs.
In support of his motion for leave to enter judgment against the defendant upon its default in answering, the plaintiff failed to proffer either an affidavit of the facts or a complaint verified by a party with personal knowledge of the facts ( see CPLR 3215[f]; Paz v. Long Is. R.R. Co., 204 A.D.2d 611; Drake v. Drake, 296 A.D.2d 566; Parratta v. McAllister, 283 A.D.2d 625; Fiorino v. Yung Poon Yung, 281 A.D.2d 513). Accordingly, the motion was properly denied.
Furthermore, the Supreme Court providently exercised its discretion in granting the defendant's cross motion to compel the plaintiff to accept its answer and in excusing the defendant's delay in serving an answer ( see CPLR 2004, 3012[d]). In view of the absence of any prejudice to the plaintiff, the existence of a possible meritorious defense, the lack of willfulness on the part of the defendant, and the public policy in favor of resolving cases on the merits, we agree with the Supreme Court that, as a matter of discretion, the defendant's delay in answering was properly excused ( see Drake v. Drake, supra; Calcagno v. Magistrelli, 284 A.D.2d 289; Kaiser v. Delaney, 255 A.D.2d 362; Van Man Adhesives Corp. v. City of New York, 236 A.D.2d 465).
RITTER, J.P., SMITH, FRIEDMANN, H. MILLER and CRANE, JJ., concur.