Opinion
December 19, 1986
Appeal from the Supreme Court, Chautauqua County, Cass, J.
Present — Callahan, J.P., Denman, Boomer, Pine and Balio, JJ.
Order unanimously reversed, on the law, without costs, and motion denied. Memorandum: The court abused its discretion by vacating an order of preclusion and two orders of summary judgment upon the ground of excusable default (CPLR 5015 [a] [1]). To obtain relief on this ground, plaintiff was obliged to show a reasonable excuse for his default and a meritorious cause of action (Engelder v. Williams, 112 A.D.2d 738; Klenk v Kent, 103 A.D.2d 1002, appeal dismissed 63 N.Y.2d 953). Plaintiff has shown neither.
The proffered excuse for continual defaults was that the attorney of record referred the case to another attorney who, by reason of alcoholism, completely neglected the matter. That excuse is inadequate. An attorney of record cannot absolve himself of responsibility to his client by merely transferring the file and thereafter blindly presuming that all is well, particularly where, as here, all notices of default were served on him and, in the exercise of due care, he should have made significant inquiry (see, Mallen Levit, Legal Malpractice § 36 [2d ed]).
Additionally, plaintiff failed to submit an affidavit with specific allegations of evidentiary facts to establish a meritorious cause of action. His conclusory allegation that a good cause of action exists is insufficient (see, Canter v Mulnick, 93 A.D.2d 751, 752, affd 60 N.Y.2d 689). Although a verified complaint may be treated as an affidavit of merits (CPLR 105 [t]), the allegations in the complaint were conclusory and thus inadequate for such purpose (Klenk v. Kent, 103 A.D.2d 1002, supra).