PICCIRILLO v. SCARLINO FUEL OIL CO., INC

ORDERED that the order is affirmed, without costs or disbursements.

The Supreme Court did not improvidently exercise its discretion in granting the defendants' motion for leave to serve a late answer and denying the plaintiff's cross motion (see, Lichtman v. Sears, Roebuck Co., 237 A.D.2d 373; Kranis, P.C. v. European Am. Bank, 208 A.D.2d 904).

RITTER, J.P., KRAUSMAN, FLORIO, and FEUERSTEIN, JJ., concur.