Opinion
2002-00028
Submitted September 20, 2002.
October 7, 2002.
In an action, inter alia, for a judgment declaring the rights of the parties to certain real property, the plaintiffs appeal from an order of the Supreme Court, Putnam County (Hickman, J.), dated December 13, 2001, which granted the defendant's motion to vacate his default in appearing and answering.
Martin J. King, P.C., Mount Kisco, N.Y., for appellants.
Daniel C. Mooney, P.C., Mattituck, N.Y., for respondent.
Before: CORNELIUS J. O'BRIEN, J.P., GABRIEL M. KRAUSMAN, SANDRA L. TOWNES, BARRY A. COZIER, JJ.
DECISION ORDER
ORDERED that the order is affirmed, with costs.
A defendant seeking to vacate a default must demonstrate both a reasonable excuse for the default and the existence of a meritorious claim or defense (see CPLR 5015[a][1]; Titan Realty Corp. v. Schlem, 283 A.D.2d 568; Matter of Gambardella v. Ortov Lighting, 278 A.D.2d 494, 495; Schiller v. Sun Rock Bldg. Corp., 260 A.D.2d 566; cf. Parker v. City of New York, 272 A.D.2d 310). A defendant is not required to establish its defense as a matter of law; it need only set forth sufficient facts to make out a prima facie showing of a meritorious defense (see Energy Sav. Products v. Milici, 168 A.D.2d 415; Tat Sang Kwong v. Budge-Wood Laundry Service, 97 A.D.2d 691, 692).
Here, the defendant demonstrated both a valid excuse for failing to interpose an answer to the complaint and a meritorious defense thereto. Therefore, the Supreme Court providently exercised its discretion in vacating the default.
O'BRIEN, J.P., KRAUSMAN, TOWNES and COZIER, JJ., concur.