Ordered that the order dated July 5, 2006 is affirmed insofar as appealed from, with costs.
To vacate his default, the appellant was required to demonstrate a reasonable excuse for not opposing the motion by the plaintiff and the third-party defendants and a meritorious defense to that motion ( see CPLR 5015 [a] [1]; Piton v Cribb, 38 AD3d 741; Yurteri v Artukmac, 28 AD3d 545, 546; Matter of Hye-Young Chon v Country-Wide Ins. Co., 22 AD3d 849; Fekete v Camp Skwere, 16 AD3d 544, 545). Although a court has the discretion to accept law office failure as a reasonable excuse ( see CPLR 2005), a conclusory, undetailed, and uncorroborated claim of law office failure does not amount to a reasonable excuse ( see Matter of ELRAC, Inc. v Holder, 31 AD3d 636, 636-637; McClaren v Bell Atl., 30 AD3d 569; Matter of Denton v City of Mount Vernon, 30 AD3d 600, 601; Solomon v Ramlall, 18 AD3d 461). The appellant's uncorroborated and inadequately explained excuse for failing to oppose the motion did not constitute a reasonable excuse. Moreover, the appellant failed to present a meritorious defense. Accordingly, the Supreme Court providently exercised its discretion in denying the appellant's motion.