Michael Ivanciu, Flushing, for appellant.

Rosenthal & Goldhaber, P.C., Hauppauge (Robert D. Goldhaber of counsel), for respondent.

Order, Supreme Court, New York County (Donna M. Mills, J.), entered September 18, 2015, which granted plaintiff's motion to strike defendant's answer pursuant to CPLR 3126 for failure to comply with outstanding discovery, unanimously reversed, on the law and the facts and in the exercise of discretion, without costs, and the motion denied.

Upon the record before us, it does not appear that the pro se defendant's conduct was willful and contumacious and, thus, the drastic sanction of striking her answer is not warranted, given the lack of prejudice to plaintiff as a result of defendant's delay in answering the interrogatories (see Pezhman v Department of Educ. of the City of N.Y., 95 AD3d 625 [1st Dept 2012]; Cigna Prop. & Cas. Co. v Decoration & Design Bldg. Partnership, 268 AD2d 223 [1st Dept 2000]; Cianciolo v Trism Specialized Carriers, 274 AD2d 369 [2d Dept 2000]). Concur—Acosta, P.J., Renwick, Mazzarelli, Andrias and Manzanet-Daniels, JJ.