From Casetext: Smarter Legal Research

Onishenko v. Ntansah

Supreme Court, Appellate Division, Second Department, New York.
Dec 21, 2016
145 A.D.3d 910 (N.Y. App. Div. 2016)

Opinion

12-21-2016

Sue ONISHENKO, appellant, v. Ashley NTANSAH, et al., respondents.

H. Bruce Fischer Esq., P.C., Tappan, NY, for appellant. Bréa Yankowitz, P.C., Floral Park, NY (Patrick J. Bréa and Glenn G. Gunsten of counsel), for respondents.


H. Bruce Fischer Esq., P.C., Tappan, NY, for appellant.

Bréa Yankowitz, P.C., Floral Park, NY (Patrick J. Bréa and Glenn G. Gunsten of counsel), for respondents.

RUTH C. BALKIN, J.P., LEONARD B. AUSTIN, SANDRA L. SGROI, and HECTOR D. LaSALLE, JJ.

In an action to recover damages for personal injuries, the plaintiff appeals from an order of the Supreme Court, Queens County (Hart, J.), entered August 27, 2015, which denied her motion to vacate an order of the same court entered April 18, 2014, granting the defendants' unopposed motion, inter alia, for summary judgment dismissing the complaint.

ORDERED that the order is affirmed, with costs.

On July 14, 2010, the plaintiff commenced this action to recover damages for personal injuries she allegedly sustained while participating in a personal training session at the defendant Club H Fitness. By notice of motion dated October 24, 2013, the defendants moved, inter alia, for summary judgment dismissing the complaint. The plaintiff failed to submit opposition to the motion and to appear for oral argument on November 15, 2013. In an order entered April 18, 2014, the Supreme Court granted the defendants' motion, inter alia, for summary judgment dismissing the complaint. In June 2014, the plaintiff moved to vacate the April 18, 2014, order made upon her failure to oppose the defendants' motion. After numerous adjournments, the plaintiff's motion was marked off the calendar on January 14, 2015, upon her failure to appear at oral argument. On April 1, 2015, the plaintiff re-filed her motion to vacate the default order entered April 18, 2014. The court denied the plaintiff's motion.

In seeking to vacate the order entered upon her failure to oppose the defendants' motion, the plaintiff was required to demonstrate both a reasonable excuse for the default and a potentially meritorious opposition to the defendants' motion (see CPLR 5015[a][1] ; BAC Home Loans Servicing, LP v. Parone, 126 A.D.3d 923, 924, 7 N.Y.S.3d 195 ; Bank of N.Y. v. Young, 123 A.D.3d 1068, 1069, 2 N.Y.S.3d 127 ; Schenk v. Staten Is. Univ. Hosp., 108 A.D.3d 661, 662, 969 N.Y.S.2d 519 ). Where a delay or default results from law office failure, a court may exercise its discretion to excuse that delay or default (see CPLR 2005 ; JP Morgan Chase Bank, N.A. v. Russo, 121 A.D.3d 1048, 1049, 996 N.Y.S.2d 68 ; Remote Meter Tech. of NY, Inc. v. Aris Realty Corp., 83 A.D.3d 1030, 1032, 922 N.Y.S.2d 440 ). However, "it was not the Legislature's intent to routinely excuse such defaults, and mere neglect will not be accepted as a reasonable excuse" (Incorporated Vil. of Hempstead v. Jablonsky, 283 A.D.2d 553, 553–554, 725 N.Y.S.2d 76 ; see JP Morgan Chase Bank, N.A. v. Russo, 121 A.D.3d at 1049, 996 N.Y.S.2d 68 ; Alberton Developers, Inc. v. All Trade Enters., Inc., 74 A.D.3d 1000, 1001, 902 N.Y.S.2d 403 ; De Vito v. Marine Midland Bank, 100 A.D.2d 530, 531, 473 N.Y.S.2d 218 ).

The plaintiff's attorney's proffered excuse failed to adequately explain the default in this case. The alleged error in not filing a change of attorney form for more than 2 ½ years after counsel had been substituted and the failure to have the date of oral argument appear on counsel's calendar cannot account for the plaintiff's inaction for 7 months when counsel was aware of the pending motion (see Ortega v. Bisogno & Meyerson, 38 A.D.3d 510, 511, 831 N.Y.S.2d 259 ). Accordingly, the plaintiff failed to establish a reasonable excuse for her default. Since the plaintiff failed to establish a reasonable excuse for her default, it is unnecessary to determine whether she established a potentially meritorious opposition to the defendants' motion (see JP Morgan Chase Bank, N.A. v. Russo, 121 A.D.3d at 1049, 996 N.Y.S.2d 68 ; Capital Source v. AKO Med., P.C., 110 A.D.3d 1026, 1026, 973 N.Y.S.2d 794 ; Citimortgage, Inc. v. Bustamante, 107 A.D.3d 752, 753, 968 N.Y.S.2d 513 ).


Summaries of

Onishenko v. Ntansah

Supreme Court, Appellate Division, Second Department, New York.
Dec 21, 2016
145 A.D.3d 910 (N.Y. App. Div. 2016)
Case details for

Onishenko v. Ntansah

Case Details

Full title:Sue ONISHENKO, appellant, v. Ashley NTANSAH, et al., respondents.

Court:Supreme Court, Appellate Division, Second Department, New York.

Date published: Dec 21, 2016

Citations

145 A.D.3d 910 (N.Y. App. Div. 2016)
43 N.Y.S.3d 504
2016 N.Y. Slip Op. 8537

Citing Cases

Onewest Bank, FSB v. Singer

Although "[a] motion to vacate a default is addressed to the sound discretion of the motion court" ( Aurora…

Am. Home Mortg. Servicing, LLC v. Abodalo

A Court has the discretion to accept law office failure as a reasonable excuse, "where the claim ... is…