Opinion
December 27, 1993
Appeal from the Supreme Court, Queens County (Santucci, J.).
Ordered that the order is affirmed, with costs.
On November 14, 1990, the court issued an order directing the defendant to comply with the plaintiff's discovery demands. Thereafter, upon the defendant's failure to comply with said demands, the plaintiff moved to strike the defendant's answer and counterclaim pursuant to CPLR 3126. The court issued a decision granting the motion upon the defendant's default. However, the defendant subsequently moved for reconsideration of the court's decision. By order dated May 7, 1991, the court granted the defendant's motion and, upon doing so, denied the plaintiff's motion to strike.
We agree with the plaintiff's contention that the defendant's motion was, in effect, a motion to vacate its default in complying with the court's order dated November 14, 1990 (see, Duque v Ortiz, 154 A.D.2d 333). However, contrary to the plaintiff's contentions, the court did not err in granting the motion and in denying the plaintiff's motion to strike the defendant's answer and counterclaim. The defendant offered a reasonable excuse for its default and made an adequate showing of the merits of its defense (see, Elliot v New York City Hous. Auth., 187 A.D.2d 410; cf., Duque v Ortiz, 154 A.D.2d 333, supra). Also, we note that the defendant attached to its motion its responses to the plaintiff's discovery demands (see, Chaisson v North Shore Univ. Hosp., 188 A.D.2d 632).
We have reviewed the plaintiff's remaining contention and find it to be without merit. Mangano, P.J., Rosenblatt, Lawrence, Copertino and Joy, JJ., concur.