Order (James E. d'Auguste, J.), entered June 25, 2014, affirmed, with $10 costs.
Civil Court providently exercised its discretion in permitting defendant to amend its answer to assert a counterclaim. Plaintiff is not prejudiced by the amendment (see Kocourek v. Booz Allen Hamilton Inc., 85 AD3d 502, 504  ) and the proposed counterclaim, alleging plaintiff's breach of a leasehold obligation to provide insurance and indemnify defendant, is not palpably insufficient or patently devoid of merit (see MBIA Ins. Corp. v. Greystone & Co., Inc., 74 AD3d 499, 499–500  ).
Nor did the court abuse its discretion in declining to strike the answer on account of defendant's untimely compliance with a prior order directing it to furnish a further bill of particulars and a response to a notice for discovery and inspection. While defendant was tardy in complying, its late compliance was not shown to have been willful, contumacious or in bad faith (see Irizarry v. Ashar Realty Corp., 14 AD3d 323, 324  ).