DECISION ORDER
ORDERED that the notice of appeal from the order dated May 23, 2002, is deemed a premature notice of appeal from the judgment entered July 24, 2002 ( see CPLR 5520[c]); and it is further,
ORDERED that the judgment is affirmed, with costs.
A defendant seeking to vacate a default in appearing or answering must demonstrate both a reasonable excuse for the default and the existence of a meritorious defense ( see CPLR 5015[a][1]; O'Leary v. Noutsis, 303 A.D.2d 664, 665; O'Shea v. Bittrolff, 302 A.D.2d 439; Westchester Med. Ctr. v. ELRAC, Inc., 301 A.D.2d 518, 519). Here, the affirmation of the defendants' attorney submitted in support of their motion to vacate indicated that the law firm was retained by the defendants' insurance carrier after the defendants' time to answer had expired. However, an insurance carrier's delay is insufficient to establish a reasonable excuse for a default (see O'Shea v. Bittrolff, supra; Meggett v. Gibson, 302 A.D.2d 372, 373; Cilindrello v. Rayabin, 297 A.D.2d 699; Andrade v. Ranginwala, 297 A.D.2d 691; Kachar v. Berlin, 296 A.D.2d 479). Accordingly, the Supreme Court providently exercised its discretion in denying the defendants' motion to vacate their default ( see Ujueta v. Wu, 303 A.D.2d 676; O'Shea v. Bittrolff, supra; Cilindrello v. Rayabin, supra; Forestire v. Little, 293 A.D.2d 710).
The defendants' remaining contentions are without remit.
SANTUCCI, J.P., KRAUSMAN, McGINITY, SCHMIDT and CRANE, JJ., concur.