Ordered that the order is affirmed, with costs.
The plaintiff's action was dismissed when neither the plaintiff nor its attorney appeared on the date set for a compliance conference. Accordingly, in order to vacate the dismissal and to restore the action to the calendar, the plaintiff was required to demonstrate both a reasonable excuse for the default and a meritorious cause of action ( see 22 NYCRR 202.27; Jones v New York City Hous. Auth., 13 AD3d 489; Kandel v Hoffman, 309 AD2d 904). It was within the Supreme Court's discretion to accept the plaintiffs excuse of law office failure ( see CPLR 2005), as it was supported by a "detailed and credible" explanation of the default ( Henry v Kuveke, 9 AE)3d 476, 479 [2004]; Gironda v Katzen, 19 AD3d 644, 645). Moreover, the supplemental affidavit of the plaintiffs president, with supporting evidence, demonstrated the existence of a meritorious cause of action.