WHITE v. Wilfredo Cortez, et al., appellants. (2007)

In an action to recover damages for personal injuries, etc., the defendants Wilfredo Cortez and Wilfredo Cortez, d/b/a Fred Flat Fix appeal from an order of the Supreme Court, Kings County (Lewis, J.), dated October 20, 2006, which denied their motion to vacate their default in answering the complaint.

ORDERED that the order is affirmed, with costs.

In order to vacate their default in answering the complaint, the appellants were required to demonstrate a reasonable excuse for their failure to serve an answer, and a meritorious defense (see CPLR 5015[a][1];  Forward Door of N.Y., Inc. v. Forlader, 41 A.D.3d 535, 836 N.Y.S.2d 440;  Piton v. Cribb, 38 A.D.3d 741, 832 N.Y.S.2d 274;  Fekete v. Camp Skwere, 16 A.D.3d 544, 545, 792 N.Y.S.2d 127).   Although a court has the discretion to accept law office failure as a reasonable excuse (see CPLR 2005), a conclusory, undetailed, and uncorroborated claim of law office failure does not amount to a reasonable excuse (see Matter of ELRAC v. Holder, 31 A.D.3d 636, 817 N.Y.S.2d 916;  Matter of Denton v. City of Mount Vernon, 30 A.D.3d 600, 817 N.Y.S.2d 140;  McClaren v. Bell Atl., 30 A.D.3d 569, 817 N.Y.S.2d 395;  Solomon v. Ramlall, 18 A.D.3d 461, 795 N.Y.S.2d 76).   Here, the appellants' uncorroborated and inadequately-explained excuse for failing to answer did not constitute a reasonable excuse.   In fact, the record supports the conclusion that the appellants purposely embarked upon a course of “willful default and neglect” (Santiago v. New York City Health & Hosps. Corp., 10 A.D.3d 393, 394, 780 N.Y.S.2d 764;  Kolajo v. City of New York, 248 A.D.2d 512, 670 N.Y.S.2d 52;  Roussodimou v. Zafiriadis, 238 A.D.2d 568, 569, 657 N.Y.S.2d 66).   Moreover, the appellants' claim that their attorney apparently made an erroneous assumption regarding the need to answer the complaint does not constitute a valid excuse (see Everything Yogurt v. Toscano, 232 A.D.2d 604, 649 N.Y.S.2d 163;  Awad v. Severino, 122 A.D.2d 242, 505 N.Y.S.2d 437;  see also Rodriguez v. Ng, 23 A.D.3d 450, 805 N.Y.S.2d 570).   Accordingly, the Supreme Court providently exercised its discretion in denying the motion.