to the plaintiff's ability to oppose the defendant's motion, it did not constitute extrinsic fraud (seeWells Fargo Bank, N.A. v. Plaut, 206 A.D.3d 953, 955, 171 N.Y.S.3d 143 ; HSBC Bank USA, N.A. v. Walker, 201 A.D.3d 795, 797, 162 N.Y.S.3d 82 ). Instead, the defendant's omission constituted intrinsic fraud, or presenting false statements or information to a court, which required the plaintiff to establish a reasonable excuse for its default and a potentially meritorious opposition to the defendant's motion (seeWells Fargo Bank, N.A. v. Plaut, 206 A.D.3d at 954, 171 N.Y.S.3d 143 ; HSBC Bank USA, N.A. v. Walker, 201 A.D.3d at 797, 162 N.Y.S.3d 82 ). Contrary to the defendant's assertions, the plaintiff established a reasonable excuse for failing to oppose the defendant's motion based on a calendaring error made by the plaintiff's counsel (seeMuhammed v. Federal Express Corp., 199 A.D.3d 695, 696, 153 N.Y.S.3d 908 ; Wilmington Trust, N.A. v. Pape, 192 A.D.3d 947, 949, 140 N.Y.S.3d 712 ; Jackson v. Kothuru, 183 A.D.3d 707, 708–709, 121 N.Y.S.3d 893 ). The plaintiff also demonstrated a meritorious opposition to the defendant's motion by showing that the 2007 stipulation would have changed the outcome of the motion.
In order to vacate a default in opposing a motion pursuant to CPLR 5015(a)(1), the moving party is required to demonstrate a reasonable excuse for the default as well as a potentially meritorious opposition to the motion (see Jackson v Kothuru, 183 A.D.3d 707, 708; Rocco v Family Foot Ctr., 94 A.D.3d 1077, 1079). Here, the plaintiff's excuse of law office failure was reasonable (see Jackson v Kothuru, 183 A.D.3d at 707-709; Lotz v Westbourne Apts., Inc., 159 A.D.3d 810, 812), and she also demonstrated that she had a potentially meritorious opposition to the defendant's motion (see Garcia v City of NY, 189 A.D.3d 788, 789).
"Law office failure may qualify as a reasonable excuse for a party's default if the claim of such failure is supported by a credible" and detailed explanation of the default ( Maruf v. E.B. Mgt. Props., LLC, 181 A.D.3d at 671, 121 N.Y.S.3d 282 ; seeDeep v. City of New York, 183 A.D.3d 586, 587, 123 N.Y.S.3d 174 ; OneWest Bank, FSB v. Singer, 153 A.D.3d 714, 716, 59 N.Y.S.3d 480 ). The determination as to what constitutes a reasonable excuse is a matter of the court's discretion, but mere neglect will not suffice (see CPLR 2005 ; Maruf v. E.B. Mgt. Props., LLC, 181 A.D.3d at 671–672, 121 N.Y.S.3d 282 ; Ki Tae Kim v. Bishop, 156 A.D.3d 776, 777, 67 N.Y.S.3d 655 ; Onishenko v. Ntansah, 145 A.D.3d 910, 911, 43 N.Y.S.3d 504 ; see alsoJackson v. Kothuru, 183 A.D.3d 707, 709, 121 N.Y.S.3d 893 ; Ferreira v. Singh, 176 A.D.3d 782, 784, 110 N.Y.S.3d 40 ). Here, a managing attorney at the law firm representing the plaintiff was notified of the February 28, 2018 adjourned deadline to submit opposition papers to the defendants’ motion, and a member of the firm entered a "follow up docket date" for February 7, 2018, "to ensure that the opposition was being handled" (cf. Maruf v. E.B. Mgt. Props., LLC, 181 A.D.3d at 672, 121 N.Y.S.3d 282 ; Matter of Castellotti v. Castellotti, 165 A.D.3d 926, 927–928, 86 N.Y.S.3d 120 ).
Here, the plaintiff failed to demonstrate a reasonable excuse for its attorney's failure to appear on the return date of the defendant's motion which resulted in the order dated August 8, 2018 (see Bank of Am., N.A. v Russell, 197 A.D.3d at 449; Thomas v Avalon Gardens Rehabilitation & Health Care Ctr., 107 A.D.3d at 695; Eastern Sav. Bank, FSB v Charles, 103 A.D.3d 683, 684; cf. Jackson v Kothuru, 183 A.D.3d 707, 708-709). Inasmuch as the plaintiff failed to demonstrate a reasonable excuse for its default, this Court need not consider whether it offered a potentially meritorious opposition to the defendant's motion (see Wells Fargo Bank, N.A. v Syed, 160 A.D.3d 914, 915).
However, the Court disagrees with defendant's interpretation of the application of the law — plaintiff had to demonstrate a "potentially meritorious opposition to [defendant's] motion" (World O World Corp. v Anoufrieva, 163 AD3d 610, 611 [2d Dept 2018] [emphasis added]; see Navarrete v Metro PCS, 137 AD3d 1230, 1231 [2d Dept 2016] ["To vacate the order . . ., which was entered upon the plaintiff's failure to appear at oral argument, the plaintiff was required to demonstrate a reasonable excuse for her default and a potentially meritorious opposition to the respondent's motion] [emphasis added]; Jackson v Kothuru, 183 AD3d 707, 708 [2d Dept 2020] ["In order to vacate a default in opposing a motion pursuant to CPLR 5015(a)(1), the moving party is required to demonstrate a reasonable excuse for the default as well as a potentially meritorious opposition to the motion"] [emphasis added]).
However, the Court disagrees with defendant's interpretation of the application of the law - plaintiff had to demonstrate a "potentially meritorious opposition to [defendant's] motion" (World O World Corp. v. Anoufrieva, 163 A.D.3d 610, 611 [2d Dept 2018] [emphasis added]; see Navarrete v. Metro PCS, 137 A.D.3d 1230, 1231 [2d Dept 2016] ["To vacate the order . . ., which was entered upon the plaintiffs failure to appear at oral argument, the plaintiff was required to demonstrate a reasonable excuse for her default and a potentially meritorious opposition to the respondent's motion] [emphasis added]; Jackson v. Kothuru, 183 A.D.3d 707, 708 [2d Dept 2020] ["In order to vacate a default in opposing a motion pursuant to CPLR 5015(a)(1), the moving party is required to demonstrate a reasonable excuse for the default as well as a potentially meritorious opposition to the motion'"] [emphasis added]).