Court Opinion

ID: 6003049
Source: CourtListenerOpinion
Date Created: 2022-01-13 10:07:07.633001+00
Date Added: 2024-06-11T08:49:12.270641
License: Public Domain

Contrary to the appellant’s contention, the Supreme Court did not improvidently exercise its discretion in denying her motion to vacate the prior order entered on her default, since the appellant failed to establish a reasonable excuse for her default and a meritorious defense (see, CPLR 5015 [a] [1]; Fennell v Mason, 204 AD2d 599; Putney v Pearlman, 203 AD2d 333). Rosenblatt, J. P., Sullivan, Copertino, Santucci and Gold-stein, JJ., concur.