The Rybak Firm, PLLC (Damin J. Toell of counsel), for appellant. Marshall & Marshall, PLLC (Barbara Carabell of counsel), for respondent.

Appeal from an order of the Civil Court of the City of New York, Kings County (Michael Gerstein, J.), entered January 22, 2018. The order denied plaintiff's motion for the entry of a default judgment and granted defendant's cross motion to open its default in answering and to compel plaintiff to accept defendant's late answer.

ORDERED that the order is affirmed, with $25 costs.

In this action by a provider to recover assigned first-party no-fault benefits, plaintiff appeals from an order of the Civil Court which denied plaintiff's motion for the entry of a default judgment and granted defendant's cross motion to open its default in answering and to compel plaintiff to accept defendant's late answer.

A defendant seeking to open a default in answering based on an excusable default must demonstrate both a reasonable excuse for the default and the existence of a potentially meritorious defense to the action (see CPLR 5015 [a] [1]; Eugene Di Lorenzo, Inc. v A.C. Dutton Lbr. Co., 67 NY2d 138, 141 [1986]). The determination of what constitutes a reasonable excuse for a default lies within the sound discretion of the motion court (see Matter of Gambardella v Ortov Light., 278 AD2d 494 [2000]).

Contrary to plaintiff's contention, the Civil Court did not improvidently exercise its discretion in finding that defendant had established a reasonable excuse for not timely answering the complaint. Further, defendant demonstrated that it had a potentially meritorious defense as to whether there was a lack of coverage for plaintiff's claims because the alleged injuries did not arise from an insured incident (see Central Gen. Hosp. v Chubb Group of Ins. Cos., 90 NY2d 195, 199-200 [1997]).

Accordingly, the order is affirmed.

PESCE, P.J., ALIOTTA and SIEGAL, JJ., concur.