DECISION ORDER
ORDERED that the order is affirmed insofar as appealed, with costs.
The Supreme Court providently exercised its discretion in denying the plaintiff's motion (see, Meyer v. Rose, 160 A.D.2d 565 ). Following the commencement of this action, the defendant moved, inter alia, to dismiss the complaint as time-barred. Although this motion was made several days after the time to appear or answer had run (see, CPLR 320), it nevertheless clearly demonstrated that the plaintiff's claims of legal malpractice were untimely and meritless. In light of the brief, inadvertent delay, the absence of prejudice to the plaintiff, and the defendant's meritorious defense, the Supreme Court correctly denied the plaintiff's motion for leave to enter a judgment upon the defendant's failure to appear or answer (see, Lichtman v. Sears, Roebuck Co., 236 A.D.2d 373 ), and properly granted that branch of the defendant's motion which was to dismiss the complaint as time-barred.