Sean Smith, for appellant. Lenny Bari, respondent pro se (no brief filed).

Appeal from an order of the Civil Court of the City of New York, Kings County (Rupert V. Barry, J.), dated September 29, 2022. The order denied defendant's motion to vacate a judgment entered upon defendant's failure to appear in the action.

ORDERED, that the order is reversed, without costs, and defendant's motion to vacate the default judgment is granted.

In this small claims action, plaintiff seeks to recover the principal sum of $10,000, alleging "damage to automobile"^[FN1] on October 20, 2021. Defendant defaulted in appearing on the trial date and, following an inquest, on July 1, 2022, the Civil Court (Rachel Freier, J.) awarded a default judgment to plaintiff in the principal sum of $10,000.

Defendant moved, in effect pursuant to CPLR 5015 (a) (1), to vacate the default judgment. Defendant's motion was supported by the affidavit of its executive assistant and by the affirmation of its attorney, Sean R. Smith. Defendant's executive assistant stated that she had forwarded the notice of the small claims action to defense counsel. She provided a copy of defendant's paid $7,000 invoice for repairs to plaintiff's car: a sum which, she remarked, was $3,000 less than both plaintiff's claim and the judgment that the Civil Court had awarded to plaintiff. The invoice included a bold print "warranty disclaimer," directly below which was [*2]written plaintiff's purported signature. Defendant's executive assistant asserted that defendant had performed work for plaintiff "in a workmanlike and competent fashion." Attorney Smith confirmed his receipt of the notice of the small claims action, and said that defendant had defaulted on the trial date as a result of his failure to diary the matter. On the basis of these papers, defendant claimed it had a reasonable excuse for its default and a potentially meritorious defense. Plaintiff did not submit written opposition to defendant's motion. Following oral argument by both parties, in an order dated September 29, 2022, the Civil Court (Rupert V. Barry, J.) denied defendant's motion.

The law office failure of defense counsel constituted a reasonable excuse for defendant's default, particularly considering that the default was an isolated incident, that defendant moved relatively promptly to vacate the default judgment, that there was no evidence that the default had been willful, and that plaintiff failed to demonstrate prejudice in connection with the requested vacatur of the default (see Patel v New York City Tr. Auth., 199 AD3d 925, 927 [2021]; Advanced Remodeling of Long Is., Inc. v Monahan, 175 AD3d 1361, 1362 [2019]). Furthermore, defendant established that it had potentially meritorious defenses based on the adequacy of the services it had provided and the warranty disclaimer on its invoice purportedly signed by plaintiff (see UCC 2-316; 1-201 [10]; ConTel Credit Corp. v Mr. Jay Appliances & TV, 128 AD2d 668, 668 [1987]; see also Joka Indus., Inc. v Doosan Infracore Am. Corp., 153 AD3d 506, 508 [2017]; Sky Acres Aviation Servs. v Styles Aviation, 210 AD2d 393, 394 [1994]). We therefore conclude that the Civil Court improvidently exercised its discretion in denying defendant's motion.

Accordingly, the order is reversed and defendant's motion to vacate the default judgment is granted.

TOUSSAINT, P.J., BUGGS and OTTLEY, JJ., concur.