MENA v. KONG

ORDERED that the order is reversed, on the law, with costs, the motion is granted, and the order dated December 10, 1997, is vacated.

A court may excuse a default in answering upon a showing of a meritorious defense and a justifiable excuse for the default (see,CPLR 5015[a][1]; Fox v. Bicanic, 163 A.D.2d 272 ). The affidavit of the defendant Choon-Ket Kong established a meritorious defense to the action. In addition, we are satisfied that the defendants provided a justifiable excuse for their default (see, Fox v. Bicanic, supra; Murphy v. D.V. Waste Control Corp., 124 A.D.2d 573 ).