Lamguasco v. Ruiz

Appellate Division of the Supreme Court of New York

Lamguasco v. Ruiz

48 A.D.3d 369, 852 N.Y.S.2d 108

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

DecidedFebruary 28, 2008

StatusPublished

This text of 48 A.D.3d 369 (Lamguasco v. Ruiz) 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

Lamguasco v. Ruiz, 48 A.D.3d 369, 852 N.Y.S.2d 108 (N.Y. Ct. App. 2008).

Pincite

Opinion

Order, Supreme Court, Bronx County (Alison Y. Tuitt, J.), entered February 24, 2006, which denied plaintiffs motion to vacate a 2004 order that had granted defendant summary judgment dismissing the complaint on default, and to renew her opposition thereto, unanimously affirmed, without costs.

Plaintiff offered no reasonable excuse for her default (see Montero v City of New York, 38 AD3d 734 [2007]). In any event, the opposition presented in her request for leave to renew was [370]*370insufficient to establish that she had sustained a serious injury, due to the infirmities in the medical submissions, as well as the nearly three-year, unexplained gap in her medical treatment (see Pommells v Perez, 4 NY3d 566 [2005]). Concur—Lippman, P.J., Friedman, Williams and Acosta, JJ.

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

Order, Supreme Court, Bronx County (Alison Y. Tuitt, J.), entered February 24, 2006, which denied plaintiffs motion to vacate a 2004 order that had granted defendant summary judgment dismissing the complaint on default, and to renew her opposition thereto, unanimously affirmed, without costs.

Plaintiff offered no reasonable excuse for her default (see Montero v City of New York, 38 AD3d 734 [2007]). In any event, the opposition presented in her request for leave to renew was [370]*370insufficient to establish that she had sustained a serious injury, due to the infirmities in the medical submissions, as well as the nearly three-year, unexplained gap in her medical treatment (see Pommells v Perez, 4 NY3d 566 [2005]). Concur—Lippman, P.J., Friedman, Williams and Acosta, JJ.

Cite This Page — Counsel Stack

Bluebook (online)

48 A.D.3d 369, 852 N.Y.S.2d 108, Counsel Stack Legal Research, https://law.counselstack.com/opinion/lamguasco-v-ruiz-nyappdiv-2008.

Opinion

Related

Cite This Page — Counsel Stack