Order affirmed, without costs or disbursements.
In view of the relatively short period of the delay, the absence of prejudice to plaintiff, the potential meritorious nature of the defense, the absence of any willfulness on defendant's part and the public policy in favor of resolving cases on the merits so that the expeditious disposal of cases does not become an end in itself, we conclude that the trial court did not abuse its discretion in excusing defendant's default (see, Stark v Marine Power Light Co., 99 A.D.2d 753; Lindo v Evans, 98 A.D.2d 765; Vista Plumbing Cooling v Woldec Constr. Corp., 67 A.D.2d 761; CPLR 2005, 5015 [a] [1]). O'Connor, J.P., Weinstein, Niehoff and Eiber, JJ., concur.