Ordered that the order is affirmed, with costs.
To vacate the dismissal of the action pursuant to CPLR 3216, the plaintiff was required to demonstrate a justifiable excuse for her failure to timely file a note of issue in response to a valid 90-day notice contained in a certification order issued by the Supreme Court, as well as a potentially meritorious cause of action ( see CPLR 3216; Baczkowski v Collins Constr. Co., 89 NY2d 499, 503; Serby v Long Is. Jewish Med. Ctr, 34 AD3d 441; Apicella v Estate of Apicella, 305 AD2d 621; Aguilar v Knutson, 296 AD2d 562). The determination of a reasonable excuse lies within the trial court's discretion ( see Santiago v New York City Health Hosps. Corp., 10 AD3d 393, 394; Roussodimou v Zafiriadis, 238 AD2d 568, 569 ). While "[t]he court has discretion to accept law-office failure as a reasonable excuse . . . `a pattern of willful default and neglect' should not be excused" ( Roussodimou v Zaftriadis, 238 AD2d at 569, quoting Gannon v Johnson Scale Co., 189 AD2d 1052, 1052; see Santiago v New York City Health Hosps. Corp., 10 AD3d at 394; Kolajo v City of New York, 248 AD2d 512). Under the circumstances of this case, the Supreme Court providently exercised its discretion in rejecting law office failure as a reasonable excuse and, thus, in denying the plaintiffs motion ( see Santiago v New York City Health Hosps. Corp., 10 AD3d at 394; Kolajo v City of New York, 248 AD2d at 512-513).