THOMPSON v. COUNTY OF SUFFOLK

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

A defendant who has failed to appear or answer the complaint must provide a reasonable excuse for the default and demonstrate the existence of a meritorious defense to the action to avoid the entry of a default judgment ( see CPLR 5015 [a] [1]; Eugene Di Lorenzo, Inc. v A.C. Dutton Lbr. Co., 67 NY2d 138, 141; Juseinoski v Board of Educ of City of N.Y., 15 AD3d 353, 355-356; Ennis v Lema, 305 AD2d 632, 633). Here, the affirmation of the attorney representing the defendant County of Suffolk was sufficient to establish that the failure to submit a timely answer was not willful, but rather, was due to law office failure ( see CPLR 2005; Valure v Century 21 Grand, 35 AD3d 591, 592; Whitfield v State of New York, 28 AD3d 541, 542; Friedman v Crystal Ball Group, Inc., 28 AD3d 514, 515). Furthermore, the County demonstrated the existence of a meritorious defense. Accordingly, the Supreme Court providently exercised its discretion in denying that branch of the plaintiffs motion which was for leave to enter a default judgment against the County.