| Nurse v Figeroux & Assoc. |
| 2008 NY Slip Op 00466 [47 AD3d 778] |
| January 22, 2008 |
| Appellate Division, Second Department |
| Benjamin Nurse, Respondent, v Figeroux & Associates etal., Appellants. |
—[*1] Rozario & Associates, P.C., Brooklyn, N.Y. (Rovin R. Rozario of counsel), forrespondent.
In an action, inter alia, to recover damages for legal malpractice, the defendants appeal froman order of the Supreme Court, Kings County (Ruchelsman, J.), dated July 25, 2006, whichdenied their motion to vacate an order of the same court (Kurtz, J.) dated May 8, 2006, grantingthe plaintiff's motion to strike the answer on the ground that the defendants failed to comply withoutstanding discovery demands, upon their default in opposing the motion.
Ordered that the order is affirmed, with costs.
In order to prevail on their motion to vacate, the defendants were required to demonstrateboth a reasonable excuse for their default and a meritorious defense (see Hospital for Joint Diseases v DollarRent A Car, 25 AD3d 534 [2006]; Fekete v Camp Skwere, 16 AD3d 544, 545 [2005]). Thedetermination of what constitutes a reasonable excuse lies within the trial court's discretion (see Santiago v New York City Health &Hosps. Corp., 10 AD3d 393, 394 [2004]; Roussodimou v Zafiriadis, 238 AD2d568, 569 [1997]). Although the court has the discretion to accept law office failure as areasonable excuse (see CPLR 2005) the defendants' conclusory, undetailed, anduncorroborated claim of law office failure in this case did not amount to a reasonable excuse (see Matter of ELRAC, Inc. v Holder,31 AD3d 636 [2006]; McClaren v Bell Atl., 30 AD3d 569 [2006]; Matter of Denton v City of Mount Vernon,30 AD3d 600, 601 [2006]; Grezinsky v Mount Hebron Cemetery, 305 AD2d542 [2003]). Moreover, the defendants made no attempt to demonstrate that they had ameritorious defense to the action. Mastro, J.P., Santucci, Dillon and Angiolillo, JJ., concur.