Ordered that the order is affirmed, with one bill of costs.
In this action to foreclose a mortgage, the defendants Sotirios J. Lagakos and Donna M. Lagakos (hereinafter the defendants) moved pursuant to CPLR 5015 (a) (3) to vacate a default judgment entered against them based upon the alleged "fraud, misrepresentation, or other misconduct" of the plaintiff (CPLR 5015 [a] [3]). The defendants alleged that the plaintiff obtained the underlying default judgment through "intrinsic fraud," i.e., that the plaintiff's allegations as to the defendants' default on the mortgage were false ( Morel v. Clacherty, 186 AD2d 638, 639), rather than through "extrinsic fraud," which is "a fraud practiced in obtaining a judgment such that a party may have been prevented from fully and fairly litigating the matter" ( Shaw v. Shaw, 97 AD2d 403). The defendants were therefore required to show a reasonable excuse for their default ( see Fischman v. Gilmore, 246 AD2d 508; Berardo v. Berardo, 205 AD2d 1036; Morel v. Clacherty, supra). Since the defendants failed to do so, the Supreme Court properly denied their motion pursuant to CPLR 5015 (a) (3) to vacate their default ( see Fischman v. Gilmore, supra; Berardo v. Berardo, supra; Morel v. Clacherty, supra).
The defendants' remaining contentions are either without merit or need not be reached in light of our determination.