Opinion
Argued February 17, 2000.
April 3, 2000.
In an action to recover legal fees, the defendant appeals from an order of the Supreme Court, Queens County (Milano, J.), dated March 2, 1999, which, inter alia, denied his motion to vacate a judgment of the same court, dated November 19, 1997, entered upon his default in appearing in the action.
William Matteo, Moriches, N.Y., appellant pro se.
Jerry I. Lefkowitz, Lake Success, N.Y., for respondent.
FRED T. SANTUCCI, J.P., DANIEL W. JOY, WILLIAM C. THOMPSON, GLORIA GOLDSTEIN, JJ.
DECISION ORDER
ORDERED that the order is affirmed, without costs or disbursements.
To succeed on a motion to vacate a judgment entered upon a default, the movant must demonstrate both a valid excuse for the default and a meritorious defense to the underlying action (see,CPLR 5015[a]; MRI Enterprises Inc. v. Amanat, 263 A.D.2d 530 ; Lovisa Constr. Co. v. Facilities Dev. Corp., 148 A.D.2d 913 ). The determination of what constitutes a reasonable excuse lies within the sound discretion of the trial court, and as a general rule, its determination will not be disturbed on appeal (see,Manigat v. Louis, 262 A.D.2d 289 ; Roussodimou v. Zafiriadis, 238 A.D.2d 568 ;Bardales v. Blades, 191 A.D.2d 667 ).
Here the trial court providently exercised its discretion in denying the defendant's motion, since the defendant failed to demonstrate a reasonable excuse for his default. In light of this conclusion, we need not consider whether the defendant established the existence of a meritorious defense.