The motion court properly exercised its discretion in granting defendant's motion to compel plaintiff to accept service of its late answer where the delay in serving the answer was relatively short and attributable to law office failure (see CPLR 3012[d]; and see De Benedictis v. Rahbar, 269 A.D.2d 134, 135). We note that, while defendant included an affidavit of merit in support of its motion, the affidavit was not essential to the relief sought, no default order or judgment having been obtained by plaintiff (see Terrones v. Morera, 295 A.D.2d 254; 743 N.Y.S.2d 860, 861).
THIS CONSTITUTES THE DECISION AND ORDER OF THE SUPREME COURT, APPELLATE DIVISION, FIRST DEPARTMENT.