In Spickerman v. State of New York (85 AD2d 60, 448 NYS2d 569 [3d Dept 1982]), the defendant State failed to file or serve an answer to a claim alleging personal injuries due to defendant's negligence in constructing and maintaining a highway. The Court of Claims denied the claimant's application for a default judgment and granted defendant's motion to vacate its default. The Spickerman court agreed that the "defendant should be relieved of its default in answering," stating (at 61) as follows: "Although defendant argues that under the doctrine of sovereign immunity a default judgment for failure to serve and file a timely answer may not be entered against the State, we need only consider whether, under the facts presented in this case, the Court of Claims abused its discretion in denying claimant's motion. Admittedly, the failure to serve an answer was an oversight, a circumstance which ordinarily would fall into the category of 'law office failure', and without more would be insufficient to excuse a default ... However, when, as here, the default in answering is not willful, the defaulting party moves expeditiously for relief and the nondefaulting party is not unduly prejudiced, a court has discretion to permit the interposition of an answer under traditional concepts of permitting a litigant, against whom a claim is made, to have his day in court, particularly when there is no intention to abandon the matter and a defense on the merits exists." The Spickermancourt, pointedly declining defendant's invitation to issue a blanket ruling that a default judgment may not be entered against the State and further declining to address the dissent's assertion that defaults by the State must be treated differently than defaults by private litigants, focused instead on determining "whether" the Court of Claims abused its "discretion" in denying claimant's motion for a default judgment against the State (85 AD2d at 61).