Ordered that the order dated October 24, 1995, is affirmed insofar as appealed from; and it is further,
Ordered that the order dated October 3, 1996, is affirmed; and it is further,
Ordered that the respondent is awarded one bill of costs payable by the appellants appearing separately and filing separate briefs.
In order to vacate the order dated September 12, 1994, which dismissed the complaint, the plaintiff had to proffer evidence of a reasonable excuse for the default and a meritorious cause of action (Martinez v. Otis El. Co., 213 A.D.2d 523; see, CPLR 5015 [a] [1]; Alliance Prop. Mgt. Dev. v. Andrews Ave. Equities, 70 N.Y.2d 831; Brown v. Ryder Truck Rental, 172 A.D.2d 477). The decision as to whether to grant such relief is within the discretion of the court (Martinez v. Otis El. Co., supra). In the instant case, the plaintiff demonstrated a reasonable excuse for the default and a meritorious cause of action, and therefore, in its order dated October 24, 1995, the Supreme Court did not improvidently exercise its discretion by granting that branch of the plaintiff's motion which was to vacate the order dated September 12, 1994 (see, Lanc v. Donnelly, 184 A.D.2d 840). Similarly, the court did not improvidently exercise its discretion in its order dated October 3, 1996, by granting the plaintiff's subsequent motion to extend by six months the time to complete discovery.
Bracken, J.P., O'Brien, Santucci, Friedmann and Goldstein, JJ., concur.