Order unanimously modified on the law and as modified affirmed with costs to plaintiff in accordance with the following Memorandum: A party seeking to vacate a default judgment is "required to demonstrate both a reasonable excuse for the default and a meritorious defense to the action" ( Fennell v. Mason, 204 A.D.2d 599; see, CPLR 5015 [a] [1]). A "vague and unsubstantiated claim of law office failure" is insufficient to constitute a reasonable excuse ( Fennell v. Mason, supra, at 599; see, Korea Exch. Bank v. Attilio, 186 A.D.2d 634). Because defendants failed to show a reasonable excuse for their default, Supreme Court erred in granting their motion to vacate the default judgments against them and striking the note of issue and statement of readiness ( see, Peters v. Pickard, 143 A.D.2d 81; see also, Torres v. Houses "R" Us, 182 A.D.2d 684). We therefore modify the order by vacating the second, third and fourth ordering paragraphs, denying defendants' motions to vacate the default judgments and reinstating the note of issue.