Ordered that the order is affirmed, with costs.
The court did not improvidently exercise its discretion in treating the plaintiff's pro se order to show cause and supporting papers, inter alia, as opposition to the defendant's motion to dismiss pursuant to CPLR 3012 (b). In addition, those papers sufficiently set forth that the plaintiff had a reasonable excuse for the delay in not timely serving the complaint, and demonstrated the meritorious nature of her action (see, Innerarity v. County of Westchester, 144 A.D.2d 645; Niedermeier v Nassau County Dept. of Social Servs., 143 A.D.2d 78). Finally, the defendant's argument that the plaintiff's action was untimely commenced is without merit (see, CPLR 215). Mangano, P.J., Lawrence, Copertino, Krausman and Goldstein, JJ., concur.