Opinion
Submitted November 1, 2000.
November 28, 2000.
In an action to recover damages for personal injuries, the plaintiff appeals, as limited by his brief, from so much of an order of the Supreme Court, Kings County (Pincus, J.), dated December 6, 1999, as denied his motion for leave to enter a judgment against the defendants upon their failure to timely answer the complaint.
Parker Waichman (DiJoseph, Portegello Schuster, P.C., New York, N Y [Arnold E. DiJoseph III] of counsel), for appellant.
Gartner, Bloom Greiper, New York, N.Y. (Stephen L. Petrillo of counsel), for respondents Bedford Stuyvesant Restoration Center, Bedford Stuyvesant Restoration Corp., CDR Management, Inc., and Greene Avenue Housing Development Fund Corp.
Before: CORNELIUS J. O'BRIEN, J.P., THOMAS R. SULLIVAN, GABRIEL M. KRAUSMAN, GLORIA GOLDSTEIN, ROBERT W. SCHMIDT, JJ.
DECISION ORDER
ORDERED that the order is affirmed insofar as appealed from, with costs.
Contrary to the plaintiff's contention, the Supreme Court providently exercised its discretion in denying his motion for leave to enter a default judgment against the respondents. Although the respondents' delay in serving their answer was due to law office failure, the delay was brief and not willful, and there is no proof that the plaintiff was prejudiced thereby (see, Stone v. County of Nassau, 272 A.D.2d 392; Lefkowitz v. Kaye, Scholer, Fierman, Hays Handler, 271 A.D.2d 576; Bungay v. Joy Power Prods., 243 A.D.2d 527). Furthermore, there is a potentially meritorious defense (see, Stone v. County of Nassau, supra; Lovario v. Vuotto, 266 A.D.2d 191).