The motion was properly denied since defendant failed to offer a reasonable explanation for its failure to answer or respond to the motions for a default judgment and for its delay in moving to vacate the default judgment. Moreover, defendant failed to show a meritorious defense (see, Eugene Di Lorenzo, Inc. v. Dutton Lbr. Co., 67 N.Y.2d 138, 141). An action against an owner of premises should not be dismissed based on the exclusivity provisions of the Workers' Compensation Law "[w]hen an employer and the owner of the premises where a plaintiff is injured are distinct legal entities" (Richardson v. Benoit's Elec., 254 A.D.2d 798). In addition, the record, including the facts adduced at the inquest, shows that plaintiff's injury was caused by a fall from an elevated height and is within the purview of Labor Law § 240(1) (see, Foufana v. City of New York, 211 A.D.2d 550). Plaintiff's claim of lack of jurisdiction was properly rejected as improperly raised for the first time in its reply papers (see, Ritt v. Lenox Hill Hosp., 182 A.D.2d 560).
THIS CONSTITUTES THE DECISION AND ORDER OF SUPREME COURT, APPELLATE DIVISION, FIRST DEPARTMENT.