VEITH ENTERPRISES v. ELECTRICAL DEVELOPMENT

ORDERED that the order and judgment is affirmed insofar as appealed from, with costs.

The Supreme Court providently exercised its discretion in denying that branch of the plaintiff's motion which was for leave to enter a judgment against the respondent Pavarini Construction Co., Inc., upon its failure to timely answer the complaint. The default in answering was short and not willful, and the plaintiff was not prejudiced thereby (see, CPLR 2004; 3012[d]; Fidelity and Deposit Co. of Md. v. Anderson Co., 60 N.Y.2d 693, 695; Leogrande v. Glass, 106 A.D.2d 431, 432; Foglia v. Fashion Floors, 79 A.D.2d 598; cf., A J Concrete Corp. v. Arker, 54 N.Y.2d 870). Furthermore, the respondent set forth facts sufficiently establishing a meritorious defense (see, Anamdi v. Anugo, 229 A.D.2d 408, 409).

SANTUCCI, J.P., GOLDSTEIN, LUCIANO, SCHMIDT and CRANE, JJ., concur.