The motion was properly denied as defendants failed to proffer a reasonable excuse for the default or a meritorious defense to plaintiffs claim for an account stated (see CPLR 5015). Contrary to defendants' contention, the default judgment entered against them was not a nullity on the basis that plaintiff did not comply with CPLR 3215 (g) (3). Although the affidavit of additional mailing referred to the mailing of a summons and verified complaint and the complaint itself was not verified, the motion court's determination to disregard this mistake was well within its discretion ( see Matter of United Servs. Auto. Assn. v Kungel, 72 AD3d 517; M Entertainment, Inc. v Leydier, 71 AD3d 517, 518; CPLR 2001). There is no indication that defendants were prejudiced by the clerical error in the affidavit of additional mailing ( see e.g. Matter of Nole v New York City Dept. of Hous. Preserv. Dev., 26 AD3d 163, 164, appeal dismissed 6 NY3d 890).
Regarding a meritorious defense, defendants' generally phrased objections to plaintiff law firm's billings do not constitute the specified, contemporaneous objections to bills required to defeat an account stated cause of action ( see Zanani v Schvimmer, 50 AD3d 445). Furthermore, the record establishes that defendants made partial payments against the subject invoices ( see Kramer Levin Naftalis Frankel LLP v Canal Jean Co., Inc., 73 AD3d 604 [20101; Zanani, 50 AD3d at 446).
Defendants' reference to a possible counterclaim which they assert will result in greater damages than sought herein by plaintiff, does not, under the circumstances, constitute a meritorious defense. The counterclaim appears to be wholly unrelated to plaintiffs claim ( see Stevens v Phlo Corp., 288 AD2d 56; compare A.I. Smith Elec. Contrs. v City of New York, 211 AD2d 485, 486-487).