Ordered that the order is affirmed insofar as appealed from, with costs.
To prevail on his motion to vacate his default, the defendant John Aronis was required to demonstrate both a reasonable excuse for the default and the existence of a meritorious defense (see CPLR 5015 [a] [1]; Savino v "ABC Corp.", 44 AD3d 1026; SS Constantine Helen's Romanian Orthodox Church of Am. v Z. Zindel, Inc., 44 AD3d 744; White v Incorporated Vil. of Hempstead, 41 AD3d 709, 710). The determination as to what constitutes a reasonable excuse lies within the sound discretion of the trial court, and will not be disturbed if the record supports such determination ( see Hodges v Sidial, 48 AD3d 633, 634; White v Incorporated Vil. of Hempstead, 41 AD3d at 710). In exercising this discretion the court may accept law office failure as a reasonable excuse ( see CPLR 2005; Vasquez v New York City Hous. Auth., 51 AD3d 781). Here, the Supreme Court providently exercised its discretion in accepting Aronis's explanation for his default. Furthermore, Aronis demonstrated the existence of a potentially meritorious defense ( see Hodges v Sidial, 48 AD3d at 634).
We do not reach the plaintiffs remaining contention, as it is improperly raised for the first time on appeal ( see Sarva v Chakravorty, 34 AD3d 438, 439).