KOSLOSKY v. KOSLOSKY

ORDERED that the order is affirmed, with costs.

At a hearing to determine whether the defendant was personally served with process at his home on October 8, 1997, the conflicting testimony presented a question of credibility which the court resolved in favor of finding service. This determination, made with the opportunity to observe the witnesses' demeanor, is entitled to deference on appeal and we will not disturb it (see, Altman v. Wallach, 104 A.D.2d 391, 392 ).

Despite the liberal policy with respect to vacatur of defaults in matrimonial actions, "it is still incumbent upon the moving party to show a reasonable excuse for the default (i.e., that it was neither intentional nor willful) and the existence of a meritorious defense" (Kellerman v. Kellerman, 203 A.D.2d 533, 534 ;Estate of Allen v. Allen, 258 A.D.2d 423 ). The defendant did not offer a reasonable excuse for his default. Thus, the Supreme Court providently exercised its discretion in denying his motion, in effect, to vacate the judgment entered on his default (see,Baruch v. Baruch, 224 A.D.2d 649 ; O'Donnell v. O'Donnell, 172 A.D.2d 654 ; Rapp v. Rapp, 59 A.D.2d 737 ).

The defendant's remaining contentions are without merit.

O'BRIEN, J.P., SULLIVAN, GOLDSTEIN, LUCIANO, and FEUERSTEIN, JJ., concur.