In three consolidated actions, the first by plaintiff husband for an annulment; the second by plaintiff wife for a separation; and the third, by the plaintiff wife for an accounting and to declare certain property to be jointly owned, the husband appeals, as limited by stipulation and an order of this court, from so much of an order of the Supreme Court, Queens County, dated May 15, 1961, as denied his motion for leave to serve an amended answer in Action No. 3, so as to plead the affirmative defenses of the Statute of Frauds (Personal Property Law, § 31, subds. 1, 3) set forth in his proposed amended answer. Order, insofar as appealed from, reversed, without costs and motion of the defendant husband in Action No. 3 for leave to serve his proposed amended answer, granted. Such amended answer shall be served within 10 days after entry of the order hereon. Under all of the circumstances presented by this record, and in view of the fact that no prejudice accrued to the wife by reason of the husband's delay in seeking to amend his answer as proposed, we are of the opinion that it was an improvident exercise of discretion on the part of the learned Special Term to refuse to permit the husband to serve such amended answer. Nolan, P.J., Ughetta, Christ, Pette and Brennan, JJ., concur.