Ordered that the order is affirmed, without costs or disbursements.
Although this Court has adopted a liberal policy with respect to vacating defaults in matrimonial actions, it was still incumbent upon the defendant to demonstrate a reasonable excuse for his default in opposing the plaintiffs motion, inter alia, for an upward modification of child support, and the existence of a meritorious defense to that motion ( see Young Chen v Ruihua Li, 67 AD3d 905, 906; Ogazi v Ogazi, 46 AD3d 646; Faltings v Faltings, 35 AD3d 350; Melish v Melish, 267 AD2d 218; French v French, 260 AD2d 430, 431). The determination of what constitutes a reasonable excuse for a default lies within the sound discretion of the Supreme Court ( see Young Chen v Ruihua Li, 67 AD3d at 906; Cordova v Cordova, 63 AD3d 982; Cooper v Cooper, 55 AD3d 866). Contrary to the defendant's contention, the Supreme Court providently exercised its discretion in concluding that he failed to demonstrate the existence of a reasonable excuse for defaulting in opposing the plaintiffs motion after he had been granted numerous adjournments to submit opposition papers and retain new counsel ( see French v French, 260 AD2d at 431). Since the defendant failed to demonstrate a reasonable excuse for his default, we need not determine whether he had a meritorious defense to the plaintiffs motion ( see Young Chen v Ruihua Li, 67 AD3d at 905; Ogazi v Ogazi, 46 AD3d at 249; Matter of Lutz v Goldstone, 31 AD3d 449, 450).