Opinion
June 30, 1994
Appeal from the Supreme Court, Putnam County (Braatz, J.).
As the result of defendant's failure to comply with a certain provision of the stipulation of settlement of the parties' matrimonial action, plaintiff obtained a $17,243.31 default judgment against defendant which she entered on June 19, 1989. Thereafter, defendant moved, pursuant to CPLR 5015 (a) (3), for an order vacating the judgment. Supreme Court denied the motion, giving rise to this appeal.
We affirm. Inasmuch as defendant's request for relief was based on intrinsic fraud, he was required to make some showing of a meritorious defense and a reasonable excuse for defaulting (see, Morel v. Clacherty, 186 A.D.2d 638). Because his claim of a meritorious defense is completely unsubstantiated and as he has offered no reasonable excuse for his default, Supreme Court did not abuse its discretion in denying the motion to vacate the judgment (see, Babbo v. Babbo, 191 A.D.2d 606; Wayasamin v Wayasamin, 167 A.D.2d 460).
Cardona, P.J., Mikoll, Weiss and Peters, JJ., concur. Ordered that the order is affirmed, with costs.