Ordered that the orders are affirmed, with one bill of costs.
Contrary to the defendant's contention, the Supreme Court properly denied his motion to vacate his default in responding to the summons with notice. The motion to vacate could not be made pursuant to CPLR 317, inasmuch as the defendant did not allege, nor does the record establish, that he "did not personally receive notice of the summons in time to defend" (CPLR 317; see generally, Eugene Di Lorenzo, Inc. v. Dutton Lbr. Co., 67 N.Y.2d 138; Getz v. Stuyvesant Manor, 194 A.D.2d 589; Essex Credit Corp. v. Tarantini Assocs., 179 A.D.2d 973). Since the defendant's motion was properly treated as one to vacate a default pursuant to CPLR 5015 (a) (1), he was required to demonstrate both a reasonable excuse for the default and a meritorious defense to the action (see, Eugene Di Lorenzo, Inc. v. Dutton Lbr. Co., supra; People v Scudds, 195 A.D.2d 778; Aponte v. Raychuk, 172 A.D.2d 280, affd 78 N.Y.2d 992; Vierya v. Briggs Stratton Corp., 166 A.D.2d 645). However, the defendant's vague and unsubstantiated claim of law office failure did not constitute a reasonable excuse (see, Matter of People v. New Woman, 197 A.D.2d 525; Morris v Metropolitan Transp. Auth., 191 A.D.2d 682; Forum Ins. Co. v Judd, 191 A.D.2d 230; Donovan v. Getty Petroleum Corp., 174 A.D.2d 706; American Sigol Corp. v. Zicherman, 166 A.D.2d 628). Furthermore, the defendant's moving papers failed to establish the existence of a meritorious defense to the claim that he entered into an unauthorized settlement on behalf of the plaintiff in a previous action (see, Fennell v. TLB Kent Co., 865 F.2d 498; see generally, Forum Ins. Co. v. Judd, supra; Vierya v. Briggs Stratton Corp., supra).
Similarly unavailing is the defendant's claim that the Supreme Court should have granted his motion for leave to renew (see, CPLR 2221, 5015 [a] [2]). As the Supreme Court noted, the material submitted on the motion to renew still failed to establish a reasonable excuse for the default and a meritorious defense. Accordingly, the Supreme Court did not improvidently exercise its discretion in denying renewal. Sullivan, J.P., Rosenblatt, Pizzuto and Altman, JJ., concur.