| Zarzuela v Castanos |
| 2010 NY Slip Op 02135 [71 AD3d 880] |
| March 16, 2010 |
| Appellate Division, Second Department |
| Luis M. Zarzuela et al., Appellants, v F.A. NunezCastanos, Respondent. |
—[*1] Votto & Cassata, LLP, Staten Island, N.Y. (Serafina M. Cassata of counsel), forrespondent.
In an action to recover damages for personal injuries, the plaintiffs appeal from an order ofthe Supreme Court, Queens County (McDonald, J.), dated October 23, 2009, which granted thedefendant's motion pursuant to CPLR 5015 (a) (1) to vacate an order of the same court datedAugust 25, 2009, granting the plaintiffs' unopposed motion for leave to enter judgment upon thedefendant's default in answering the complaint.
Ordered that the order is reversed, on the law, with costs, and the defendant's motion tovacate the order dated August 25, 2009, is denied.
In order to vacate his default in answering the complaint pursuant to CPLR 5015 (a) (1), thedefendant was required to demonstrate a reasonable excuse for his failure to serve an answer anda meritorious defense (see CPLR 5015 [a] [1]; Forward Door of N.Y., Inc. v Forlader, 41 AD3d 535 [2007]; Piton v Cribb, 38 AD3d 741[2007]; Fekete v Camp Skwere, 16AD3d 544, 545 [2005]). While the determination of what constitutes a reasonable excuselies within the trial court's discretion (see Santiago v New York City Health & Hosps. Corp., 10 AD3d393, 394 [2004]; Roussodimou v Zafiriadis, 238 AD2d 568, 569 [1997];Grutman v Southgate At Bar Harbor Home Owners' Assn., 207 AD2d 526, 527 [1994]),the record does not support the Supreme Court's determination that the defendant offered areasonable excuse for his default. Furthermore, the defendant failed to demonstrate the existenceof a meritorious defense to the action. Rivera, J.P., Florio, Dickerson, Belen and Roman, JJ.,concur.