Ordered that the order is affirmed, with costs.
The Supreme Court providently exercised its discretion in denying the appellant's motion to vacate a judgment in light of the lengthy delay in making the motion and its failure to establish a reasonable excuse for its default ( see, CPLR 5015 [a] ; Liberty Mut. Ins. Co. v. Hermes Agency Ship Supplies Corp., 251 A.D.2d 381; Jiron v. China Buddhist Assn., 251 A.D.2d 294; Matter of Fierro v. Fierro, 211 A.D.2d 676). The unsubstantiated excuse by the appellant's attorney that his office was unaware of the hearing date was insufficient to rebut the proof that the notice was properly mailed and the presumption of receipt ( see, Orlando v. Corning Inc., 213 A.D.2d 464; Jeraci v. Froehlich, 129 A.D.2d 557, 558-559).
The appellant's remaining contention is unpreserved for appellate review.
Rosenblatt, J. P., O'Brien, Sullivan, Krausman and Florio, JJ., concur.