Perez v. Han Ki ManPerez v. Han Ki Man
Ordered that the appeal from the order dated December 2, 2005 is dismissed as abandoned (see
Ordered that order dated March 9, 2006 is affirmed insofar as appealed from; and it is further,
Ordered that one bill of costs is awarded to the respondents.
In order to vacate the default, the plaintiff Elvin Perez was required to demonstrate a reasonable excuse for the default and a meritorious cause of action (see Eugene Di Lorenzo, Inc. v A.C. Dutton Lbr. Co., 67 NY2d 138, 141 [1986]; see also Koyenov v Twin-D Transp., Inc., 33 AD3d 967 [2006]; New York & Presbyt. Hosp. v American Home Assur. Co., 28 AD3d 442 [2006]; Burns v Casale, 276 AD2d 734 [2000]). He failed, however, to demon