From Casetext: Smarter Legal Research

Montague v. Rivera

Appellate Division of the Supreme Court of New York, Second Department
Apr 1, 2008
50 A.D.3d 656 (N.Y. App. Div. 2008)

Opinion

No. 2007-03489.

April 1, 2008.

In an action, inter alia, to recover damages for personal injuries, the defendants appeal from an order of the Supreme Court, Kings County (Kramer, J.), dated March 2, 2007, which granted the plaintiffs motion to vacate a prior order of the same court dated May 19, 2000, granting their unopposed motion to dismiss the complaint.

Scalzi Nofi, Melville, N.Y. (Vincent J. Nofi of counsel), for appellants.

Rubenstein Rynecki, Brooklyn, N.Y. (Kliopatra Vrontos of counsel), for respondent.

Before: Spolzino, J.P., Ritter, Dillon, Balkin and Leventhal, JJ.


Ordered that the order dated March 2, 2007 is reversed, on the law, with costs, the plaintiffs motion to vacate the order dated May 19, 2000 is denied, and the order dated May 19, 2000 is reinstated.

In order to prevail on a motion to vacate a default in opposing a motion, a moving party is required to demonstrate both a reasonable excuse for its default and a meritorious claim ( see Eugene Di Lorenzo, Inc. v A.C. Dutton Lbr. Co., 67 NY2d 138, 141; Perez v Han Ki Man, 39 AD3d 521; Psomatithis v Transoceanic Cable Ship Co., Inc., 39 AD3d 837; Oyebola v Makuch, 10 AD3d 600, 601; Itskovich v Lichenstadter, 2 AD3d 406, 407; Beale v Yepes, 309 AD2d 886, 887). Here, the plaintiff failed to do either. The conclusory reasons for the default offered by the plaintiffs counsel were not substantiated by detailed facts and thus were insufficient to constitute a justifiable excuse ( see Juarbe v City of New York, 303 AD2d 462; Shmarkatyuk v Chouchereba, 291 AD2d 487; Morris v Metropolitan Transp. Auth., 191 AD2d 682). Further, the plaintiff failed to submit competent medical evidence demonstrating that he sustained a serious injury within the meaning of Insurance Law § 5102 (d) as a result of the subject automobile accident ( see Itskovich v Lichenstadter, 2 AD3d at 407; Beale v Yepes, 309 AD2d at 887; Waaland v Weiss, 228 AD2d 435, 436). Accordingly, the Supreme Court should have denied the plaintiffs motion to vacate the order dated May 19, 2000.


Summaries of

Montague v. Rivera

Appellate Division of the Supreme Court of New York, Second Department
Apr 1, 2008
50 A.D.3d 656 (N.Y. App. Div. 2008)
Case details for

Montague v. Rivera

Case Details

Full title:FLOYD MONTAGUE, Respondent, v. NESTEL RIVERA et al., Appellants

Court:Appellate Division of the Supreme Court of New York, Second Department

Date published: Apr 1, 2008

Citations

50 A.D.3d 656 (N.Y. App. Div. 2008)
2008 N.Y. Slip Op. 2979
854 N.Y.S.2d 749

Citing Cases

Mora v. Scarpitta

Ordered that the order is affirmed, with costs. In order to prevail on a motion to vacate a default in…

Sutherland v. Alphonso

Plaintiffs subsequently moved to vacate the December 11, 2007 order, to restore the action to the trial…