KRAMER v. OIL SERVICES

Ordered the order is affirmed insofar as appealed from, with costs.

A defendant seeking to vacate its default in appearing or answering the complaint must provide a reasonable excuse for the default and demonstrate the existence of a meritorious defense to the action ( see CPLR 5015 [a] [1]; Lemberger v Congregation Yetev Lev D'Satmar, Inc., 33 AD3d 671, 672; Krieger v Cohan, 18 AD3d 823; Kaplinsky v Mazor, 307 AD2d 916). The only excuse proffered by the appellant for the default in serving a timely answer was the more than one-year delay caused by its insurance carrier in providing a defense which, under the circumstances, was insufficient ( see Toland v Young, 60 AD3d 754; Martinez v D'Alessandro Custom Bldrs. Demolition, Inc., 52 AD3d 786; Canty v Gregory, 37 AD3d 508; Lemberger v Congregation Yetev Lev D'Satmar, Inc., 33 AD3d at 672; Krieger v Cohan, 18 AD3d 823; Hegarty v Ballee, 18 AD3d 706). Accordingly, the Supreme Court providently exercised its discretion in denying the appellant's motion.