Opinion
Argued September 19, 2000.
November 13, 2000.
In an action to recover damages for personal injuries, the defendants appeal from an order of the Supreme Court, Kings County (Jackson, J.), dated October 18, 1999, which denied their motion to vacate a judgment of the same court, entered January 19, 1999, upon their failure to appear.
Cheven, Keely Hatzis, New York, N.Y. (Thomas Torto of counsel), for appellants.
Feder, Kaszovitz, Isaacson, Weber, Skala Bass, LLP, New York, N Y (Alvin M. Feder and Ezio Scaldaferri of counsel), for respondent.
Before: DAVID S. RITTER, J.P., HOWARD MILLER, SANDRA J. FEUERSTEIN, NANCY E. SMITH, JJ.
DECISION ORDER
ORDERED that the order is affirmed, with costs.
The plaintiff commenced this action against the defendants seeking to recover damages for personal injuries. After the defendants failed to timely answer or appear, a judgment was entered against them. The defendants thereafter moved to vacate the judgment, arguing, inter alia, that they had both a reasonable excuse for their default and a meritorious defense to the action (see, CPLR 5015[a][1])). They further argued that the plaintiff's motion to be granted a judgment upon their default was not supported by an affidavit of the facts or a complaint verified by a party with personal knowledge of the facts, as required by CPLR 3215(f) (see, Grainger v. Wright, 274 A.D.2d 549 [2d Dept., July 31, 2000]; Henriquez v. Purins, 245 A.D.2d 337). In the order appealed from, the Supreme Court denied the motion to vacate. We affirm.
Contrary to the defendants' contention, they failed to offer a reasonable excuse for their default. Thus, the court properly denied their motion to vacate pursuant to CPLR 5015(a)(1) (see, Booth v. Hawk Contrs., 259 A.D.2d 577). Further, on the facts presented, particularly the advanced age of the plaintiff, the denial of the motion was a provident exercise of the court's discretion to consider such relief in the interest of justice (see, F C Gen. Contrs. Corp. v. Atlantic Mut. Mtge. Corp., 20 2 A.D.2d 629; Lane v. Lane, 175 A.D.2d 103). To the extent that our decisions in Hazim v. Winter ( 234 A.D.2d 422) and Goodyear v. Weinstein ( 224 A.D.2d 387) described each of the default judgments therein as a "nullity " and subject to vacatur as such, they should not be followed (see, Freccia v. Carullo, 93 A.D.2d 281). The defendants' remaining contentions are without merit.