LaFalce v. Alexandrov

Appellate Division of the Supreme Court of New York

LaFalce v. Alexandrov

288 A.D.2d 271, 732 N.Y.S.2d 886, 2001 N.Y. App. Div. LEXIS 10926

CourtAppellate Division of the Supreme Court of the State of New York

DecidedNovember 13, 2001

StatusPublished

Cited by1 cases

This text of 288 A.D.2d 271 (LaFalce v. Alexandrov) is published on Counsel Stack Legal Research, covering Appellate Division of the Supreme Court of the State of New York primary law. Counsel Stack provides free access to over 12 million legal documents including statutes, case law, regulations, and constitutions.

Bluebook

LaFalce v. Alexandrov, 288 A.D.2d 271, 732 N.Y.S.2d 886, 2001 N.Y. App. Div. LEXIS 10926 (N.Y. Ct. App. 2001).

Pincite

Opinion

—In an action to recover damages for personal injuries, the defendant appeals from an order of the Supreme Court, Kings County (Bernstein, J.), dated January 31, 2001, which, upon the grant of the plaintiffs motion, inter alia, to vacate an order of the same court dated November 8, 2000, granting the defendant’s unopposed motion for summary judgment dismissing the complaint on the ground that the plaintiff did not sustain a serious injury within the meaning of Insurance Law § 5102 (d), denied that motion.

Ordered that the order is affirmed, with costs.

On a motion to vacate a default pursuant to CPLR 5015 (a), a plaintiff must demonstrate a reasonable excuse for the default and a meritorious cause of action (see, CPLR 5015 [a] [1]; Waaland v Weiss, 228 AD2d 435). The plaintiff gave a reasonable excuse for his delay in answering the motion for summary judgment (see, Matter of Kaufman v Board of Educ., 210 AD2d 226). Furthermore, the plaintiff demonstrated that he has a meritorious cause of action (see, Abedin v Tynika Motors, 279 AD2d 595; Martin v JL Distribs., 274 AD2d 420; Moreno v Delcid, 262 AD2d 464; Petrone v Thornton, 166 AD2d 513). Santucci, J. P., Altman, Florio, H. Miller and Cozier, JJ., concur.

Free access — add to your briefcase to read the full text and ask questions with AI

—In an action to recover damages for personal injuries, the defendant appeals from an order of the Supreme Court, Kings County (Bernstein, J.), dated January 31, 2001, which, upon the grant of the plaintiffs motion, inter alia, to vacate an order of the same court dated November 8, 2000, granting the defendant’s unopposed motion for summary judgment dismissing the complaint on the ground that the plaintiff did not sustain a serious injury within the meaning of Insurance Law § 5102 (d), denied that motion.

Ordered that the order is affirmed, with costs.

On a motion to vacate a default pursuant to CPLR 5015 (a), a plaintiff must demonstrate a reasonable excuse for the default and a meritorious cause of action (see, CPLR 5015 [a] [1]; Waaland v Weiss, 228 AD2d 435). The plaintiff gave a reasonable excuse for his delay in answering the motion for summary judgment (see, Matter of Kaufman v Board of Educ., 210 AD2d 226). Furthermore, the plaintiff demonstrated that he has a meritorious cause of action (see, Abedin v Tynika Motors, 279 AD2d 595; Martin v JL Distribs., 274 AD2d 420; Moreno v Delcid, 262 AD2d 464; Petrone v Thornton, 166 AD2d 513). Santucci, J. P., Altman, Florio, H. Miller and Cozier, JJ., concur.

Cite This Page — Counsel Stack

Bluebook (online)

288 A.D.2d 271, 732 N.Y.S.2d 886, 2001 N.Y. App. Div. LEXIS 10926, Counsel Stack Legal Research, https://law.counselstack.com/opinion/lafalce-v-alexandrov-nyappdiv-2001.

Opinion

Related

Cite This Page — Counsel Stack