DECISION ORDER
ORDERED that the order entered March 29, 2002, is affirmed insofar as appealed from; and it is further,
ORDERED that the order entered September 9, 2002, is affirmed; and it is further,
ORDERED that one bill of costs is awarded to the respondents appearing separately and filing separate briefs.
The respondents did not default in answering the amended complaint ( see S.D.I. Corp. v. Fireman's Fund Ins. Cos., 208 A.D.2d 706) . In any event, even if they did default in answering, they established justifiable excuses therefor, and potentially meritorious defenses to the action ( see McNamara v. Banney, 227 A.D.2d 892). Moreover, there is no indication that the plaintiffs were prejudiced by the alleged default ( see McKay v. Longman, 199 A.D.2d 941; Leogrande v. Glass, 106 A.D.2d 431; County of Nassau v. Cedric Constr. Corp., 100 A.D.2d 890). Under these circumstances, the court properly denied the plaintiffs' motion for leave to enter judgment.
The court also correctly granted that branch of the cross motion of the defendants University Physicians of Brooklyn, Inc., and Daniel Zabel (hereinafter UPB and Zabel) which was to dismiss the amended complaint insofar as asserted against them. Accepting the facts as alleged in the amended complaint as true, and according the plaintiffs the benefit of every possible favorable inference ( see Leon v. Martinez, 84 N.Y.2d 83), , the amended complaint fails to state a cause of action against UPB and Zabel ( see CPLR 3211[a][7]). Indeed, the plaintiffs' allegations regarding the conduct of UPB and Zabel were impermissibly vague and conclusory ( see Stoianoff v. Gahona, 248 A.D.2d 525). Moreover, the affidavits the plaintiffs submitted in opposition to the cross motion failed to remedy the amended complaint's defects ( see Guggenheimer v. Ginzburg, 43 N.Y.2d 268; Rovello v. Orfino Realty Co., 40 N.Y.2d 633).
The court also correctly granted the remaining defendants' subsequent motion to dismiss the amended complaint insofar as asserted against them, since the court lacked subject matter jurisdiction over the controversy with respect to those defendants ( see CPLR 3211[a][2]). Indeed, the court correctly determined that under the circumstances, those defendants, who were officials and employees of the State, acted in their official capacities in the exercise of governmental functions ( see Morrell v. Balasubramanian, 70 N.Y.2d 297). Therefore, the action could only be maintained against them in the Court of Claims ( see Drought v. New York State Psychiatric Inst., 206 A.D.2d 500).
The plaintiffs' remaining contentions are without merit.
RITTER, J.P., S. MILLER, LUCIANO and H. MILLER, JJ., concur.