Ordered that the order is affirmed, with costs.
In order to vacate an order striking its answer based upon its default in appearing for a scheduled conference before the court, the defendant herein was required to demonstrate both a reasonable excuse for its failure to appear and a meritorious defense ( see McClaren v Bell Atl., 30 AD3d 569; Kein v Zeno, 23 AD3d 351; Rubenbauer v Mekelburg, 22 AD3d 826). Although the court has the discretion to accept law office failure as a reasonable excuse ( see CPLR 2005), the defendant was required to substantiate the law office failure excuse with "detailed factual allegations" ( see Grezinsky v Mount Hebron Cemetery, 305 AD2d 542; Eretz Funding v Shalosh Assoc., 266 AD2d 184, 185). Here, the Supreme Court providently exercised its discretion in rejecting the defendant's excuse of law office failure as it was conclusory, undetailed, and uncorroborated ( see McClaren v Bell Atl., 30 AD3d 569; Solomon v Ramlall, 18 AD3d 461).