ORDERED that the order is affirmed insofar as appealed from, with costs.
The branch of the appellant's motion which was pursuant to CPLR 5015 to vacate a judgment entered on his default, or pursuant to CPLR 317 to open his default, was untimely because it was not made within one year of service upon him of a copy of the default judgment with notice of entry (see, CPLR 317; CPLR 5015[a][1]). In any event, the Supreme Court properly exercised its discretion in denying the motion. With regard to the application for relief under CPLR 317, the appellant failed to demonstrate that he did not receive actual notice of the summons in time to defend. Mere denials of receipt are insufficient to rebut the presumption of proper service created by a properly-executed affidavit of service (see, Udell v. Alcamo Supply Contr. Corp., 275 A.D.2d 453; Facey v. Heyward, 244 A.D.2d 452). With regard to the application for relief under CPLR 5015(a)(1), the appellant failed to proffer a reasonable excuse for his failure to respond to numerous notices of default (see, J. P. Equip. Rental Materials v. Fidelity Guar. Ins. Co., 288 A.D.2d 187 [2d Dept., Nov. 5, 2001]; Matter of Gambardella v. Ortov Light., 278 A.D.2d 494; Parker v. City of New York, 272 A.D.2d 310). Such a pattern of default or neglect is considered intentional and should not be excused (see, Eretz Funding v. Shalosh Assocs., 266 A.D.2d 184; Roussodimou v. Zafiriadis, 238 A.D.2d 568).
The appellant's remaining contentions are without merit.
ALTMAN, J.P., ADAMS, TOWNES and PRUDENTI, JJ., concur.