Ordered that the order is affirmed, without costs or disbursements.
The explanation proffered by the deceased plaintiff's attorney of record and the attorney representing the executor in the probate proceeding does not satisfactorily explain the entire delay of approximately 2 1/2 years in obtaining letters testamentary, so that the executor of the decedent's estate could be substituted as the proper party plaintiff. Nevertheless, in view of the absence of any showing that the delay prejudiced the defendant (see, Orellana v. Malek, 116 A.D.2d 557; Carel Almo Serv. v. Weisskopf, 58 A.D.2d 550; cf., Dorney v. Reddy, 45 A.D.2d 754), and the strong public policy that matters should be disposed of on the merits (see, Milam v. Gibson Cushman of N Y, 81 A.D.2d 555; Paul v. Ascher, 106 A.D.2d 619, 621), the court did not abuse its discretion in denying the defendant's motion to dismiss the action, pursuant to CPLR 1021, and substituting the executor, who received letters testamentary while the motion was pending (see, Rosenfeld v. Hotel Corp., 20 N.Y.2d 25; cf., Meier v. Shively, 10 A.D.2d 566; Dorney v. Reddy, supra; Mazzacano v. Jordan, 40 Misc.2d 901). Weinstein, J.P., Rubin, Kunzeman and Kooper, JJ., concur.