DECISION ORDER
ORDERED that the order is affirmed, with costs.
The Supreme Court providently exercised its discretion in denying the plaintiff's motion for leave to enter a judgment against the defendant upon its failure to timely answer the complaint. While the defendant's delay in serving its answer was due to law office failure, the record indicates that the delay was short and not willful, and that the plaintiff was not prejudiced thereby (see, A J Concrete Corp. v. Arker, 54 N.Y.2d 870; Matter of Long Is. Lighting Co. v. Assessor of Town of Brookhaven, 251 A.D.2d 332; Bungay v. Joy Power Prods., 243 A.D.2d 527). Furthermore, the defendant set forth facts sufficiently establishing a meritorious defense (see, Concepcion v. Talon Realty Corp., 258 A.D.2d 494; Anamdi v. Anugo, 229 A.D.2d 408).
RITTER, J.P., SULLIVAN, S. MILLER, LUCIANO and H. MILLER, JJ., concur.