DECISION ORDER
ORDERED that the order dated June 21, 2002, is affirmed, with one bill of costs.
The plaintiff commenced this action to recover damages for personal injuries arising from a motor vehicle accident. The defendant Mohammed J. Sheikh did not answer or appear. Further, the plaintiff defaulted on two motions by the defendant Miriam Fearon, which resulted in an order granting that defendant a conditional order of preclusion and an order granting that defendant summary judgment dismissing the complaint insofar as asserted against her. The plaintiff moved, inter alia, to vacate his defaults and for leave to enter a default judgment against Sheikh. Sheikh cross-moved for an order dismissing the complaint as abandoned insofar as asserted against him. The Supreme Court denied the plaintiff's motion and granted Sheikh's cross motion. We affirm.
In support of those branches of his motion which were to vacate his defaults, the plaintiff failed to demonstrate either a reasonable excuse for his defaults ( see CPLR 5015[a][1]; Kaplinsky v. Mazor, 307 A.D.2d 916; Parker v. City of New York, 272 A.D.2d 310; Matter of United States Auto. Assn. v. Steiger, 191 A.D.2d 496) or a meritorious cause of action ( see Sicari v. Hung Yuen Wong, 286 A.D.2d 489; Sharp v. Lebron, 282 A.D.2d 733; Gomez v. Lotero, 273 A.D.2d 198). Thus, the Supreme Court properly denied such relief.
The plaintiff also failed to demonstrate good cause why he did not seek to enter a judgment against Sheikh until almost three years after Sheik's default in answering or appearing ( see CPLR 3215[c]; Opia v. Chukwu, 278 A.D.2d 394; Richards v. Lewis, 243 A.D.2d 615; Ewart v. Maimonides Medical Ctr., 239 A.D.2d 543). Thus, the Supreme Court properly dismissed the complaint as abandoned insofar as asserted against Shiekh.
In light of the dismissal of the complaint in its entirety, the plaintiff's remaining contentions need not be reached.
RITTER, J.P., SMITH, GOLDSTEIN and H. MILLER, JJ., concur.