Opinion
December 6, 1990
Appeal from the Supreme Court, New York County (Francis Pecora, J.).
It is within the IAS court's discretion to determine whether or not a party has shown a reasonable excuse for a default (Sanders Assocs. v. Hague Dev. Corp., 100 A.D.2d 964, 965). Here, defendant's excuse for his default was that he was not properly served. The record supports the IAS court's conclusion to the contrary, and we find no reason to disturb that conclusion on appeal.
The motion to vacate the 1972 judgment, based on evidence that an employee of plaintiff submitted false testimony in an affidavit filed with the United States District Court for the Southern District in a previous Federal litigation that was dismissed for lack of Federal jurisdiction, is also unavailing. Even if we were to find the purportedly newly discovered evidence offered by defendant relevant, defendant has not presented a reasonable explanation for the 17-year delay in bringing these matters to the attention of the court (see, DiIorio v. Gibson Cushman, 161 A.D.2d 532, amended 166 A.D.2d 334).
Concur — Sullivan, J.P., Milonas, Rosenberger, Ellerin and Rubin, JJ.