On January 16, 2008, the court heard Defendant's motion to vacate a default judgement in the small claims part. The court found that there was no reasonable excuse for Defendant's faiulre to attend the court date and therefore denied the motion. Defendant has once again made a motion to vacate the default judgement. Since the defendant is asking for the same relief as in the first motion, the Court will treat this motion as one pursuant to CPLR §2221, wherein a motion to renew and reargue is made.

The Court finds that Defendant did not meet the strict guidelines and criteria of CPLR §2221. Defendant does not present any new facts which would change the Court's prior decision, nor does Defendant show that the Court misapplied the facts or law. A motion to reargue is addressed to the sound discretion of the court, and it may be granted upon a showing that the court overlooked or misapprehended the relevant facts, or misapplied the applicable law (see Amato v. Lord & Taylor, Inc., 10 AD3d 374, 375 [2nd Dept. 2004). The remedy is not for the purposes of rearguing issues previously decided, or to present new arguments not previously raised (see, McGill v. Goldman, 261 AD2d 593, 594 [2nd Dept. 1999]).

Moreover, in order to vacate a default judgment, Defendant is required to establish, pursuant to CPLR 5015 (a), a reasonable excuse for the default and a meritorious defense (see, Eugene Di Lorenzo, Inc. v Dutton Lbr. Co., 67 NY2d 138, 141, 492 NE2d 116, 501 NYS2d 8 [1986]). Merely stating conclusory allegations that one possesses a reasonable excuse is insufficient. (see, Stracar Med. Servs., P.C. v. State Farm Mut. Auto. Ins. Co., 2008 NY Slip Op 50277U, see also Parker v. Advanced Auto Parts, 2008 NY Slip Op 50906U)

Although a court has the discretion to accept law office failure as a reasonable excuse (see CPLR 2005), a conclusory, undetailed, and uncorroborated claim of law office failure does not amount to a reasonable excuse (see Matter of ELRAC v Holder, 31 AD3d 636, 817 NYS2d 916; Matter of Denton v City of Mount Vernon, 30 AD3d 600, 817 NYS2d 140; McClaren v Bell Atl., 30 AD3d 569, 817 NYS2d 395; Solomon v Ramlall, 18 AD3d 461, 795 NYS2d 76)

Here, the defendant's uncorroborated and inadequately-explained excuse that the fax machine was not working did not constitute a reasonable excuse for failing to appear. (see, White v. Daimler Chrysler Corp., 2007 NY Slip Op 7426, 1-2 (NY App. Div. 2d Dep't 2007)Since Defendant's attorney was aware that he was to receive a fax with the information of the appearance, he could have contacted his client if he did not receive said information. [*2]Additionally, although the attorney affirmation and Defendant's affidavit attempt to explain why the attorney did not appear in court, it is silent as to why the defendant did not appear.

Accordingly, Defendant's Motion is hereby denied in its entirety.

This opinion constitutes the decision and order of the Court. A copy of this decision will be mailed to the parties.

Dated:May 9, 2008

____________________________

Lila P. Gold, J.C.C.