Ordered that the appeal from the order dated January 3, 2007, is dismissed, as no appeal lies from an order entered upon the default of the appealing party ( see CPLR 5511); and it is further,
Ordered that the order dated June 19, 2007, is affirmed; and it is further,
Ordered that one bill of costs is awarded to the plaintiff's.
A defendant seeking to vacate its default in appearing or answering the complaint must demonstrate a reasonable excuse for the default and a meritorious defense to the action ( see CPLR 5015 [a] [1]; Eugene Di Lorenzo, Inc. v A.C. Dutton Lbr. Co., 67 NY2d 138, 141; Canty v Gregory, 37 AD3d 508; Mjahdi v Maguire, 21 AD3d 1067). The defendants' excuse that their insurance carrier failed to provide a defense was insufficient to excuse their default in serving a timely answer ( see Lemberger v Congregation Yetev Lev D'Satmar, Inc., 33 AD3d 671, 672; Krieger v Cohan, 18 AD3d 823, 824; Juseinoski v Board of Educ. of City of N.Y., 15 AD3d 353, 356). In view of the lack of a reasonable excuse, it is unnecessary to consider whether the defendants sufficiently demonstrated the existence of a meritorious defense (see Levi v Levi, 46 AD3d 519, 520; Segovia v Delcon Constr. Corp., 43 AD3d 1143, 1144; Mjahdi v Maguire, 21 AD3d at 1068). Accordingly, the defendants' motion to vacate their default was properly denied.