Appeal by plaintiff from an order of the Civil Court, Kings County (D. Waltrous, J.), entered April 9, 2003, which granted defendant's motion to vacate the default judgment entered against it and permitted defendant to serve and file an answer.

Order unanimously reversed with $10 costs and defendant's motion to vacate the default judgment denied.

A defendant seeking to vacate a default judgment must demonstrate both a reasonable excuse for the default and the existence of a meritorious defense (see CPLR 5015 [a] [1]; Ruppell v Hair Plus Beauty, 288 AD2d 205 [2001]). In the instant case, when defendant moved to vacate the default judgment entered against it, defendant merely stated that it failed to timely interpose an answer "[d]ue to a minor clerical error, as well as the need to conduct a background investigation for the necessary materials to provide to defense counsel." Although the foregoing may have constituted an excusable default, defendant failed to demonstrate the existence of a meritorious defense. We note that an unverified answer may not be utilized in lieu of an affidavit to demonstrate the existence of a meritorious defense (cf. CPLR 105 [u]; Elgart v Raleigh Hotel Corp., 115 AD2d 165, 166 [1985]). Accordingly, the court improvidently exercised its discretion [*2]when it granted defendant's motion to vacate its default.
Decision Date: May 26, 2004