Appeal by plaintiff from an order of the Civil Court, Kings County (L. Baily-Schiffman, J.), entered May 30, 2003, which granted defendant's motion to vacate the default judgment against it.

Order unanimously reversed without costs and defendant's motion to vacate the default judgment denied.

In order to vacate a default judgment, the movant must establish both a reasonable excuse for the default and a meritorious defense to the action (see Matter of Gambardella v Ortov Light., 278 AD2d 494 [2000]). Where a party alleges "law office failure" as its excuse for a default, it must submit detailed allegations of fact which explain the reason for such failure (see Morris v Metropolitan Transp. Auth., 191 AD2d 682 [1993]). In the instant case, defense counsel's affirmation was devoid of detailed allegations of fact explaining the reason for the default. A defendant's "vague and unsubstantiated claim of law office failure [does] not establish a reasonable excuse" (Fennell v Mason, 204 AD2d 599 [1994]).

Furthermore, defendant's moving papers failed to establish the existence of a meritorious defense in that defendant did not submit a copy of the peer review report, purportedly included with its denial of claim form, on which it based its defense of lack of medical necessity (see Amaze Med. Supply v Eagle Ins. Co., 2 Misc 3d 128 [A], 2003 NY Slip Op 51701 [U] [App Term, 2d & 11th Jud Dists]). [*2]

Accordingly, the court improvidently exercised its discretion when it granted defendant's motion to vacate the default, and reversal is warranted.
Decision Date: December 01, 2004