Majority
Ordered that the order entered December 17, 2009, is affirmed, with costs.
'A party seeking to vacate an order entered upon its default in opposing a petition must demonstrate both a reasonable excuse for the default and a potentially meritorious defense to the petition (see CPLR 5015 [a] [1]; Matter of Macias v Motor Veh. Acc. Indem. Corp., 10 AD3d 396 , 397 [2004]; Matter of Travelers Prop. Cas. Corp. v Bocharova, 2 AD3d 533 , 534 [2003]; Matter of United States Auto. Assn, v Steiger, 191 AD2d 496 [1993]). The vague and unsubstantiated excuse for the default proffered by the appellant’s attorney that the petition was not forwarded to him in a timely manner was insufficient (see Lemberger v Congregation Yetev Lev D’Satmar, Inc., 33 AD3d 671 , 672 [2006]; Juseinoski v Board ofEduc. of City ofN.Y, 15 AD3d 353 [2005]; Campbell v Ghafoor, 8 AD3d 316 , 317 [2004]). Furthermore, the appellant failed to demonstrate a potentially meritorious defense to the petition (see Matter of Gelish v Dix Hills Water Dist., 58 AD3d 841 [2009]; Matter of Brownstein v Incorporated Vil. of Hempstead, 52 AD3d 507 , 509 [2008]; Gibbs v City of New York, 22 AD3d 717 , 719 [2005]; Matter of Urgiles v New York City School Constr. Auth., 283 AD2d 434 [2001]). Accordingly, the appellant’s motion, in effect, to vacate the order entered September 21, 2009, upon its default, was properly denied. Rivera, J.E, Covello, Eng, Leventhal and Austin, JJ., concur.
Cases cited
- United States Automobile Ass'n v. Steiger 191 AD2d 496 p. 692
- Lemberger v. Congregation Yetev Lev D'Satmar, Inc. 33 AD3d 671 at 672 p. 692
- Juseinoski v. Board of Education 15 AD3d 353 p. 692
- Gelish v. Dix Hills Water District 58 AD3d 841 p. 692
- Gibbs v. City of New York 22 AD3d 717 at 719 p. 692