DECISION ORDER
ORDERED that the order is affirmed, with costs.
A party attempting to vacate a judgment entered on default must establish both a reasonable excuse for the default and a meritorious defense (see, Putney v. Pearlman, 203 A.D.2d 333 ). A court may, in its discretion, accept a claim of law office failure as satisfying the reasonable-excuse requirement (see, Putney v. Pearlman, supra; CPLR 2005).
The Supreme Court providently exercised its discretion in accepting law office failure as a reasonable excuse (see, St. Paul Fire Mar. Ins. Co. v. HMCC Assocs., 239 A.D.2d 400 ). Contrary to the plaintiffs' contention, the defendants' conduct in relying on the representations of their former counsel did not constitute willful default and neglect under the circumstances of this case (cf., Roussodimou v. Zafiriadis, 238 A.D.2d 568 ). Further, the defendants established that they have a meritorious defense to the action. Accordingly, the Supreme Court properly granted their motion to vacate the judgment.