SHMARKATYUK v. Joseph Pitre, Appellant. (2002)

In an action to recover damages for personal injuries, etc., the defendant Joseph Pitre appeals from an order of the Supreme Court, Kings County (Schneier, J.), dated September 6, 2001, which denied his motion to vacate his default in answering the complaint.

ORDERED that the order is affirmed, with costs.

 A court may excuse a default in answering upon a showing of a meritorious defense and a justifiable excuse for the default (see, Eugene Di Lorenzo, Inc. v. Dutton Lbr. Co., 67 N.Y.2d 138, 501 N.Y.S.2d 8, 492 N.E.2d 116).   It is within the court's discretion whether, in the interest of justice, to excuse delay or default resulting from law office failure (see, CPLR 2005;  Korea Exch. Bank v. Attilio, 186 A.D.2d 634, 589 N.Y.S.2d 48).   The conclusory statement of the appellant's counsel that his support staff was away on vacation was insufficient to excuse the default (see, Fuller v. Tae Kwon, 259 A.D.2d 662, 686 N.Y.S.2d 831).   Furthermore, the appellant failed to demonstrate a meritorious defense to the action (see, Agin v. Rehfeldt, 284 A.D.2d 352, 726 N.Y.S.2d 131, lv. denied 97 N.Y.2d 603, 735 N.Y.S.2d 492, 760 N.E.2d 1288;  Welch v. Norman, 282 A.D.2d 448, 722 N.Y.S.2d 264;   Stiles v. County of Dutchess, 278 A.D.2d 304, 717 N.Y.S.2d 325).