Appeal from an order of the District Court of Nassau County, First District (Michael A. Ciaffa, J.), dated June 18, 2012. The order, insofar as appealed from, granted defendants' motion to vacate a June 21, 2011 order of the same court granting, on default, plaintiff's motion for summary judgment and the default judgment entered pursuant to the June 21, 2011 order.

ORDERED that the order, insofar as appealed from, is affirmed, without costs.

In this action to recover the sum of $3,867.50, representing the balance of a security deposit, plaintiff appeals from an order granting defendants' motion to vacate a default judgment.

Insofar as is relevant to this appeal, plaintiff moved for leave to renew her prior cross motion for summary judgment, addressing the motion to defendants' attorney at The Krupnick Firm, P.C., 114 Old Country Road, Suite 544 in Mineola, New York, while the affidavit of service stated that the motion papers were served by mail upon defense counsel at 23 Village Square in Glen Cove, New York. By order dated June 21, 2011, the District Court granted plaintiff's renewal motion on default "to the extent of holding defendants liable for the conversion of $3,867.50 held in security." Following an inquest, a default judgment was entered in favor of plaintiff. By order dated June 18, 2012, the District Court granted defendants' motion to vacate the June 21, 2011 order and the default judgment entered pursuant thereto.

To vacate the order granting plaintiff's motion for summary judgment on default and the judgment entered pursuant thereto, defendants had to show both a reasonable excuse for their default and a meritorious defense (see CPLR 5015 [a]; Eugene Di Lorenzo, Inc. v A.C. Dutton Lbr. Co., 67 NY2d 138, 141 [1986]). The determination of what constitutes a reasonable excuse lies within a motion court's discretion (see Diaz v Ralph, 66 AD3d 819 [2009]). Here, defendants' counsel submitted a detailed and specific affirmation explaining the default, stating that the motion papers were not received at counsel's Glen Cove office, although counsel's communications with plaintiff's attorney bore the Glen Cove address, and showing that the default was not part of a pattern of neglect or willfulness (see Montefiore Med. Ctr. v Hartford Acc. & Indem. Co., 37 AD3d 673 [2007]; Security Sys. Alarm, Inc. v Gulumoglu, 38 Misc 3d 129[A], 2012 NY Slip Op 52394[U] [App Term, 9th & 10th Jud Dists 2012]). Furthermore, defendants' submissions, including a copy of the lease between the parties and an itemized list of charges deducted from plaintiff's security deposit, demonstrate a potentially meritorious defense [*2]to the action.

Accordingly, the order, insofar as appealed from, is affirmed.

Nicolai, P.J., LaSalle and Marano, JJ., concur.
Decision Date: December 12, 2013