Opinion
January 11, 1996
Appeal from the Supreme Court, Ulster County (Canfield, J.).
Plaintiffs commenced this action in April 1993 alleging, inter alia, Labor Law violations against defendant. Following the service of its answer, defendant served a third-party complaint upon defendant's employer. Upon third-party defendant's failure to answer, defendant sought a default judgment. Third-party defendant did not oppose the motion. A default judgment was thereafter filed, a copy of which was served with notice of entry upon third-party defendant. Subsequently, third-party defendant moved to vacate the default judgment. Supreme Court denied the motion and this appeal ensued.
We affirm. In order to be relieved of a judgment on the ground of "excusable default" (CPLR 5015 [a] [1]), a party "must establish that there was a reasonable excuse for the default and a meritorious claim or defense" ( Pekarek v Votaw, 216 A.D.2d 829, 830; see, Matter of Butchar v Butchar, 213 A.D.2d 788). Upon reviewing the contradictory affidavits submitted by third-party defendant's president and counsel in support of its motion to vacate, we agree with Supreme Court that third-party defendant failed to meet its burden of demonstrating a reasonable or justifiable excuse for the delay. The fact that third-party defendant's president allegedly failed to "understand the urgency" of responding to the third-party complaint does not constitute a reasonable excuse, nor does the vague and unsubstantiated claim of administrative or clerical error in the delivery of the third-party complaint to the carrier for third-party defendant ( see, Fennell v Mason, 204 A.D.2d 599; General Elec. Tech. Serv. Co. v Perez, 156 A.D.2d 781, 783).
Accordingly, we decline to disturb Supreme Court's exercise of its discretion in this matter ( see, Northeastern Harness Horsemen's Assn. v Saratoga Harness Racing, 216 A.D.2d 746, 747). Given the lack of reasonable excuse, we agree with Supreme Court that the determination of whether third-party defendant demonstrated a meritorious defense was rendered irrelevant ( see, Pekarek v Votaw, supra, at 830).
Mikoll, J.P., Mercure, Crew III and Yesawich Jr., JJ., concur. Ordered that the order is affirmed, with costs.