Opinion
Argued June 12, 2000
October 10, 2000.
In an action, inter alia, to set aside an alleged fraudulent conveyance, the plaintiffs appeal from an order of the Supreme Court, Westchester County (Rosato, J.), entered December 16, 1998, which denied their motion for leave to enter a judgment against the defendants on the second, third, and fourth causes of action asserted in the complaint upon their failure to appear or answer.
Meltzer, Lippe, Goldstein, Wolf Schlissel, P.C., Mineola, N Y (Jeffrey A. Miller and Arnold S. Klein of counsel), for appellants.
Jay Goldberg, P.C., New York, N.Y. (Eric Franz and Debra Karlstein of counsel), for respondents.
Before: CORNELIUS J. O'BRIEN, J.P., WILLIAM C. THOMPSON, MYRIAM J. ALTMAN, WILLIAM D. FRIEDMANN, JJ.
DECISION ORDER
ORDERED that the order is affirmed, with costs.
To successfully oppose a motion for leave to enter a judgment based on the defendants' failure to appear or answer, the defendants must demonstrate a reasonable excuse for the delay and provide a meritorious defense (see, Gurreri v. Village of Briarcliff Manor, 249 A.D.2d 508; Siu Lung Cheng v. Leader Jewelry Corp., 246 A.D.2d 526; Miles v. Blue Label Trucking, 232 A.D.2d 382). The defendants met both requirements, and therefore, the plaintiffs' motion for leave to enter a judgment against them was properly denied (see, Kaiser v. Delaney, 255 A.D.2d 362; Van Man Adhesives Corp. v. City of New York, 236 A.D.2d 465; Bedard v. Najim, 222 A.D.2d 979).