Defendant has failed to bear his burden of demonstrating a meritorious defense for relief from his default (Guido v New York Tel. Co., 133 A.D.2d 1005). Absent a direct challenge to the latest determination of the Loft Board, this court is precluded from considering on this appeal the issues determined thereat concerning protection to be afforded under the Loft Conversion Law (Multiple Dwelling Law art 7-C; see, Allied Chem. v Niagara Mohawk Power Corp., 72 N.Y.2d 271). The belated challenge to the service of the notice of termination, more than 4 1/2 years after the fact, is both untimely and irrelevant in an ejectment action (Alleyne v Townsley, 110 A.D.2d 674).
Concur — Sullivan, J.P., Ross, Carro, Milonas and Ellerin, JJ.