NILDA TORRES, plf-ap, v. THE HARMONIE CLUB OF THE CITY OF NEW YORK, def-res, FIFTH AVENUE AND 60TH STREET CORPORATION def

13558. NILDA TORRES, plf-ap, v. THE HARMONIE CLUB OF THE CITY OF NEW YORK, def-res, FIFTH AVENUE AND 60TH STREET CORPORATION def — Seligson, Rothman & Rothman, New York (Martin S. Rothman, Adam S. Ashe and Alyne I. Diamond of counsel), for ap — McGaw, Alventosa & Zajac, Jericho (Joseph Horowitz of counsel), for res — Order, Supreme Court, New York County (Kathryn Freed, J.), entered September 26, 2013, which denied plaintiff’s motion to vacate an order of the same court and Justice, entered April 10, 2013, which had granted, on default, defendant the Harmonie Club of the City of New York’s motion to dismiss the complaint against it for failure to, among other things, serve a bill of particulars, unanimously affirmed, without costs.

Although plaintiff’s counsel filed an authorization for electronic service, he sent all counsel a notice declining to accept electronic service, and defaulted in responding to defendant’s motion to dismiss the complaint. For the first time on appeal, plaintiff asserts that her counsel failed to respond to defendant’s motion because he mistakenly believed that email service was not permitted. This excuse is unpreserved and, in any event, unavailing (see Vazquez v. Lambert Houses Redevelopment Co., 110 AD3d 450, 451 [1st Dept 2013]).