Ordered that the order dated October 25, 2007 is affirmed, with costs.
The defendant was properly served with the plaintiff's motion to hold him in contempt ( see Corpuel v Galasso, 240 AD2d 531; Rothkopf v Rothkopf, 191 AD2d 685). On this motion to vacate his default in opposing that motion, he was required to demonstrate both a reasonable excuse for his default in opposing the motion and a meritorious opposition to the motion ( see Raciti v Sands Point Nursing Home, 54 AD3d 1014 Ayiku v Viteritti, 54 AD3d 789; CPLR 5015 [a] [1]). He failed to do either.
The defendant's remaining contentions are without merit.