Ordered that the order is affirmed, with costs.
While the plaintiff's initial default in opposing the defendants' motion for summary judgment may have been the result of excusable law office failure (see, CPLR 2005), he failed to adequately justify his almost six-month delay in moving to vacate that default. He also failed to adequately demonstrate the existence of a meritorious claim or any valid opposition to the defendants' summary judgment motion (cf., Canter v Mulnick, 60 N.Y.2d 689). Therefore, we cannot say that the Supreme Court improvidently exercised its discretion (see, CPLR 5015) in denying the plaintiff's motion to vacate his default. Kooper, J.P., Harwood, Balletta and Miller, JJ., concur.