Opinion
Submitted September 6, 2000.
October 16, 2000.
In an action to recover damages for personal injuries, the plaintiff appeals from an order of the Supreme Court, Rockland County (Sherwood, J.), dated March 10, 2000, which, inter alia, granted the defendants' motion to vacate a judgment of the same court, dated March 5, 1999, entered upon their default in answering the complaint.
Burke, McGlinn Miele, Suffern, N.Y. (Patrick T. Burke and Robert M. Miele of counsel), for appellant.
Alan B. Brill, P.C., Suffern, N.Y. (Paul S. Baum of counsel), for respondents.
Before: CORNELIUS J. O'BRIEN, J.P., THOMAS R. SULLIVAN, GABRIEL M. KRAUSMAN, GLORIA GOLDSTEIN, ROBERT W. SCHMIDT, JJ.
DECISION ORDER
ORDERED that the order is reversed, on the law, with costs, the motion is denied, and the judgment dated March 5, 1999, in favor of the plaintiff is reinstated.
A defendant moving to vacate a judgment entered upon its default must demonstrate a reasonable excuse for the default and a meritorious defense to the action (see, CPLR 5015[a][1]; Eugene Di Lorenzo, Inc. v. Dutton Lbr. Co., 67 N.Y.2d 138; Domenikos v. Miranda, 255 A.D.2d 481; Roussodimou v. Zafiriadis, 238 A.D.2d 568). The defendants failed to demonstrate a reasonable excuse for their default in appearing.
Vehicle and Traffic Law § 505(5) requires that every motor vehicle licensee notify the Commissioner of Motor Vehicles of any change of residence within 10 days of the occurrence of the change. A party who fails to comply with this provision is estopped from challenging the propriety of service made to the former address (see, Pumarejo-Garcia v. McDonough, 242 A.D.2d 374; Burke v. Zorba Diner, 213 A.D.2d 577; Sherrill v. Pettiford, 172 A.D.2d 512). After the instant motor vehicle accident took place in Rockland County, but before the commencement of this action, the defendants moved from New York to the State of Washington, without giving notice of their change of address as required by the Vehicle and Traffic Law. The defendants are therefore estopped from contesting the validity of service to their former address (see, Sherrill v. Pettiford, supra; Anello v. Barry, 149 A.D.2d 640; cf., Keane v. Kamin, 97 N.Y.2d 263).