QUIS v. BOLDEN

ORDERED that the order is affirmed, with costs.

A defendant seeking to vacate a default must demonstrate both a reasonable excuse for the default and the existence of a meritorious claim or defense (see CPLR 5015[a][1]; Titan Realty Corp. v. Schlem, 283 A.D.2d 568; Matter of Gambardella v. Ortov Lighting, 278 A.D.2d 494, 495; Schiller v. Sun Rock Bldg. Corp., 260 A.D.2d 566; cf. Parker v. City of New York, 272 A.D.2d 310). A defendant is not required to establish its defense as a matter of law; it need only set forth sufficient facts to make out a prima facie showing of a meritorious defense (see Energy Sav. Products v. Milici, 168 A.D.2d 415; Tat Sang Kwong v. Budge-Wood Laundry Service, 97 A.D.2d 691, 692).

Here, the defendant demonstrated both a valid excuse for failing to interpose an answer to the complaint and a meritorious defense thereto. Therefore, the Supreme Court providently exercised its discretion in vacating the default.

O'BRIEN, J.P., KRAUSMAN, TOWNES and COZIER, JJ., concur.