Ordered that the order is affirmed, with costs.
The defendant's application to vacate the judgment of divorce entered upon his default was untimely, as that application was not made until more than one year after service upon him of a copy of that judgment with notice of entry (see, CPLR 5015 [a] [1]). Moreover, even though the law favors the vacating of defaults in matrimonial actions (see, Lucas v. Lucas, 109 A.D.2d 781; Antonovich v. Antonovich, 84 A.D.2d 799), it is well settled that a party seeking to be relieved of a default judgment and ancillary orders resulting therefrom must establish a reasonable excuse for the default and the existence of a meritorious case (see, Junowicz v. Junowicz, 132 A.D.2d 527). The defendant has failed to do so, as his affidavit in support of the motion sets forth no explanation for his defaults and contains only vague and generalized denials of the allegations in the plaintiff's divorce complaint. Accordingly, the court did not abuse its discretion in denying the defendant's motion. Spatt, J.P., Sullivan, Harwood and Balletta, JJ., concur.