CURRAN v. GRAF

Ordered that the order is affirmed, with costs.

The Supreme Court providently exercised its discretion in denying the plaintiffs' motion for leave to enter a judgment against the respondents upon their default in appearing or answering, and in deeming the respondents' proposed verified answer to have been served. A court may vacate a default where the moving party demonstrates both a reasonable excuse for the default and the existence of a meritorious defense ( see CPLR 5015 [a] [1]). It was within the discretion of the Supreme Court, in the interest of justice, to excuse default resulting from "law office failure" (CPLR 2005; see CPLR 2004; Tewari v. Tsoutsouras, 75 NY2d 1, 12). Furthermore, the respondents' proposed verified answer set forth facts sufficient to make out a prima facie showing of a meritorious defense ( see Bartoo v. Buell, 87 NY2d 362; Rosenberg v. Eternal Mems., 291 AD2d 391; Lichtman v. Sears, Roebuck Co., 236 AD2d 373).