Appeal from an order of the Civil Court of the City of New York, Kings County (Loren Baily-Schiffman, J.), entered September 4, 2008. The order denied defendant's motion to vacate a default judgment.

ORDERED that the order is affirmed without costs.

In this small claims action to recover for services rendered, a default judgment was initially entered in favor of plaintiff on March 8, 2007. The default judgment was subsequently vacated by order entered April 19, 2007 (Kathryn E. Freed, J.), and the trial was adjourned to June 20, 2007. Defendant again defaulted, and, on June 20, 2007, judgment was entered in favor of plaintiff in the principal sum of $2,000. On August 14, 2008, a motion was brought on behalf of defendant to vacate the default judgment. The supporting affidavit did not state any excuse or reason for her default on June 20, 2007, but stated that defendant had a good defense because the same claim had previously been dismissed. Plaintiff opposed the motion to vacate the default judgment, and, following argument, the Civil Court denied the motion.

As this was defendant's second default, and as defendant failed to proffer to the Civil Court any reason for her second default, we conclude that the court did not improvidently exercise its discretion in denying defendant's motion. While, in her brief on appeal, defendant attempts to set forth in greater detail the nature of her defense and proffers an excuse for the default, this court, in reviewing the propriety of the Civil Court's order, cannot consider these dehors-the-record allegations (Chimarios v Duhl, 152 AD2d 508 [1989]).

Accordingly, as substantial justice was done between the parties according to the rules and principles of substantive law (CCA 1804, 1807), the order is affirmed.

Golia, J.P., Pesce and Rios, JJ., concur.
Decision Date: October 13, 2009