DECISION ORDER
ORDERED that the order is affirmed, with costs.
In order to succeed on a motion to vacate a judgment entered upon a default, the moving party must demonstrate both a valid excuse for the default and a meritorious defense to the underlying action ( see, Lovisa Constr. Co. v. Facilities Dev. Corp., 148 A.D.2d 913, 914). The defendants persistently ignored the plaintiff's discovery demands, willfully defied court orders, repeatedly failed to appear in court and took no action to ascertain the status of their case. Even if the defendants' former attorney was responsible for some of the delay, where there is a pattern of neglect, the attorney's negligence is properly imputed to the client ( see, Lauro v. Cronin, 184 A.D.2d 837; Chery v. Anthony, 156 A.D.2d 414). Accordingly, the defendants failed to establish a reasonable excuse for their default. Moreover, the defendants' conclusory allegation that they had no contractual relationship with the plaintiff was insufficient to establish a meritorious defense to the action ( see, Perellie v. Crimson's Rest., 108 A.D.2d 903, 904).